Lawrence Lessig: On the Rage of Gibbs

[depakid]

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been slapped around silly by commentator after commentator, decrying his anti-Lefty rage. But as I read the battle, it seems to miss a pretty fundamental point:

It's certainly not fair to criticize Obama for not being a Lefty. He wasn't ever a Lefty. He didn't promise to be a Lefty. And there's no reason to expect that he would ever become a Lefty. But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

When Candidate Obama took on Hilary Clinton, he was quite clear about what he thought about the way Washington works. And he was quite clear about why he was running for President. As he said:

Unless we're willing to challenge the broken system in Washington, and stop letting lobbyists use their clout to get their way, nothing else is going to change. And the reason I'm running for President is to challenge that system.

Read it again: "The reason I am running for President is to challenge that system."

Or again:

If we do not change our politics - if we do not fundamentally change the way Washington works -- then the problems we've been talking about for the last generation will be the same ones that haunt us for generations to come.

Or again:

But let me be clear -- this isn't just about ending the failed policies of the Bush years; it's about ending the failed system in Washington that produces those policies. For far too long, through both Democratic and Republican administrations, Washington has allowed Wall Street to use lobbyists and campaign contributions to rig the system and get its way, no matter what it costs ordinary Americans.

(or again and again and again)

Once Obama clinched the nomination, however, his rhetoric changed....

ince coming to power, Obama has pushed just one piece of legislation that would have any effect at all on the power of lobbyists over Congress. That bill has not passed, and even if it had, it would have changed nothing in the lobbyists' power. He has not even indicated that he would support the only substantial reform of lobbyists power with support in Congress today -- the Fair Elections Now Act. Indeed, "congressional reform" doesn't even merit a mention on the "Additional Issues" page of the Whitehouse.gov (though "sportsmen" does).

Obama's strategy as president has not been to "change the way Washington works." Rather, he has pushed reforms in the same old way, with the same old games. As Glenn Greenwald put it, speaking of health care:

The way this bill has been shaped is the ultimate expression -- and bolstering -- of how Washington has long worked. One can find reasonable excuses for why it had to be done that way, but one cannot reasonably deny that it was.

Now I'm not sure whether it is leftist, or rightist, or centerist to govern through special interest deals. It certainly is Clintonist. It's precisely the administration that Hillary "lobbyists are people too" Clinton promised. And were she president, and had she done exactly what Obama has done, then no one, I included, would have any reason to criticize her.

But beefed up Clintonism is not what Obama promised. He promised to "take up the fight." His failure to deliver on that critical promise -- the promise that distinguished him from his main primary rival -- or even to try, is a failure that everyone, Lefties included, should be free to complain about without suffering the rage of Gibbs.

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/on-the-rage-of-gibbs_b_680652.html

[ProSense]

1. This is perfect:

It's certainly not fair to criticize Obama for not being a Lefty. He wasn't ever a Lefty. He didn't promise to be a Lefty. And there's no reason to expect that he would ever become a Lefty.

But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

Yeah, Obama isn't a lefty, but we knew that, and we're criticizing him for promising to be a lefty, even though we knew he wasn't.

Yeah, right!

[DJ13]

2. Way to miss the point

But thats not a surprise.

[ProSense]

3. What was the

point:

It's certainly not fair to criticize Obama for not being a Lefty. He wasn't ever a Lefty. He didn't promise to be a Lefty. And there's no reason to expect that he would ever become a Lefty. But Lefties (like me) who criticize Obama are not criticizing him for failing our Lefty test. Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised.

[Chan790]

9. Um, that he's breaking campaign promises he made...

about how he was going to govern, faster than you can cover his ass.

He promised hope and change, he delivered the business, same as usual. Forgive me for putting my cynicism on the shelf and believing he wasn't going to be beholden to lobbyists or the diseased corrupt system that infects both parties.

I realize that there is nothing novel about politicians lying to get elected, then going about the way they always intended to do things. It is however so very disheartening.

[ProSense]

13. Um, he's

keeping campaign promises at a significant rate

[Chan790]

16. but not the one's cited in the OP.

Not the ones cited by Lessig. We have a right to hold him to them and hold his feet to the fire. And...we have a right to be disappointed in him. You and Bobby Gibbs can go have some Obama-adulation orgy...I'm going to keep holding the president to his words and fighting to push liberal causes.

As I recall, less than 1 month ago at Netroots(1), he asked us to do just that. I'm happy to comply, doubly-so if it pisses the likes of you and Gibbs off.

1-http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/barack-obama-netroots-nation-video_n_658193.html Obama Urges Netroots Nation To "Consider What We've Accomplished, Keep Up The Fight." Huff. Post 7/24/2010

[bvar22]

21. Here's some!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[ProSense]

24. So it's okay to ignore all the promises kept

and pick the one that wasn't to claim that the President isn't keeping his promises?

"he asked us to do just that"

He asked people to say he's failing: "Our criticism is that Obama is failing the Obama test: that he is not delivering the presidency that he promised."

No, he asked people to keep fighting, to push, not to mischaracterize his efforts and constantly portray his Presidency as being on the verge of failure.

[Phx_Dem]

44. Wrong again. Of the 505 promises he made, he has broken 20.

He has kept or is in the process of keeping 363.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

[Canuckistanian]

4. That's not the point

As the author explains.

[ProSense]

6. It is the point, or do you think this is the point

Now I'm not sure whether it is leftist, or rightist, or centerist to govern through special interest deals. It certainly is Clintonist. It's precisely the administration that Hillary "lobbyists are people too" Clinton promised. And were she president, and had she done exactly what Obama has done, then no one, I included, would have any reason to criticize her.

[Canuckistanian]

10. The point of the EXCERPT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT is this

That Obama never promised to be a Lefty.

BUT, he did make certain OTHER promises, NOT about being left or right, and he's not living up to those promises.

[bvar22]

22. Get your red hot "certain other promises" here!!! No Charge!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[Usrename]

28. That is exactly the point.

The only substantive difference between the two during a long primary was the fact that Hillary expressed a belief that lobbyists were the voice of the people and Obama expressed a belief that the lobbyists were a manifestation of what was broken in Washington and vowed to change it running on a campaign of "Hope and Change."

Now the same people who were behind that very successful campaign are heaping scorn upon those who agreed with his campaign message - those folks who would still like the administration to expend at least some minimal effort in that direction.

That really is what this is all about.

Is it really a far-left position to be against bribery or to be anti-fascist? I don't think so, nor do many others who would like to see our culture of corruption change, and it's only getting worse what with the Citizens United case, etc. There is absolutely no discernible public pushback from this administration. None.

[ProSense]

34. "There is absolutely no discernible public pushback from this administration. None. "

Really?

Would "Hillary 'lobbyists are people too' Clinton" have done any of that?

Citizens United was a recent ruling, and there was an attempt to address it.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

43. "There are maybe 1000 people on the whole planet that think the Citizens United ruling

was a good call and they all afraid to open their stoopid mouths about it. Right?"

Yeah, the ACLU and the AFL-CIO and they weren't "afraid to open their stoopid" to open their mouths.

Maybe you should know what you're talking about before opening your mouth.

[Usrename]

45. You need to learn to parse sentences better.

"There are maybe 1000 people on the whole planet that think the Citizens United ruling
was a good call and they all afraid to open their stoopid mouths about it. Right?"

In other words, there exists no visible political force that stands in support of the ruling. None that I can see. And yet it is law. How do you think that happens?

OTOH, the ACLU and the AFL-CIO and the entire civilized world and all legal and political scholars do not think that Citizens United was a good call. They have all been very vocal about it. And yet it is law. How do you think that happens?

The stupid people who actually support the decision are few and far between and virtually silent on the issue, and yet they dominate the realpolitik. How? That's all I'm asking. If you know, tell us.

I thought you would be able to get your brain around what I was saying, but maybe I should use smaller words and shorter sentences. I can write to all reading grade levels so it shouldn't be a problem.

It's funny that you alerted and got the post deleted but then you quoted it anyhow.

doh!

[MannyGoldstein]

5. wow

Just wow

[ProSense]

7. Oh please. n/t

[flpoljunkie]

40. Lessig is a proponent of Fair Elections Now Act--public financing--something Obama once supported

MoveOn has a petition to support public financing and to fight corruption which endorses passing the 'Fair Elections Now Act.' Our president has remained silent on the Fair Elections Now Act, even as he supported the DISCLOSE Act, passed by the House and languishing in the dysfunctional Senate.



Lobbyists and the big corporations they represent have run roughshod over our democracy for too long. That's why, this year, people from across the country are joining together to force politicians to work for the rest of us.

Endorse this slate of ideas and join the other 98% of us--who don't have lobbyists representing us in DC--to send a strong signal to candidates and elected officials that, this year, business as usual is over.

http://fightwashingtoncorruption.com/

[BootinUp]

8. Its actually a fair criticism, Obama raised expectations

on his ability to reform the way Washington works and wasn't at all specific on how he would do it. That allows for a wide range of criticism.

[ProSense]

12. It's a criticism about changing Washington, and

it has nothing to do with Gibbs' comment. This is an attempt to manipulate the statement to fit every criticism ever leveled at the President.

People are not shocked that campaign rhetoric is lofty and governing presents realistic challenges. Somehow this is supposed to be different with President Obama, who has tracked his campaign promises more closely than most Presidents in history.

The entire claim that Obama raised expectations too high is runnning close to saying he was arrogant, which is the why people seem to keep mentioning how he campaigned against Hillary. That's funny because a lot of people at the time of the campaign were trying to prove that Obama and Hillary were not much different.

[BootinUp]

15. If one had to pick a bone with Obama

thats the one to pick. Thats all I am saying.

As for Gibbs and the "professional left", I have already pissed off 90% of the DU membership with my opinions on that. ;)

[Usrename]

31. They weren't that much different, but at least there was Hope with Obama.

Everyone knew that Clinton wouldn't do anything about the BFEE or any of the other criminal cabals that blossomed under the Bush watch because we already had a track record of Bubba letting the previous cabal get away with all the looting they did (if your recall... a lot of them were the same heinous criminals, some of whom were even convicted under Reagan and pardoned under Poppy).

Obama promised Hope that he would try and Change that. I'm not saying that I ever expected much more that what we are getting, but I do understand how it's wrong for Obama's team to criticize people who actually believe in the policies that Obama campaigned on. That ain't right, I don't care if they're right, left or green, it ain't right.

[Autumn]

11. Good article but should anyone even give a shit

about that little turds rage? As a Lefty I say let him fucking rage, who the hell is he hurting? If it starts to hurt Obama then Obama can deal with him. Yeah, Obama campaigned one way and governs another. I am free to complain all I want. I earned that right, along with everyone else who worked, donated and voted for him.

[Chan790]

17. Did you just call Larry Lessig a turd?

What's more, you did it over a free-from-censorship-and-corporate-interference internet. I assure you that when he sees this, it will make his day. So...I'm going to thank you on his behalf.

Thanks. You've justified his career's work with the EFF.

[BootinUp]

18. I could be wrong

but I think the poster was talking about Gibbs there.

[Chan790]

20. The best part is...

either way it will make Lessig's day. If you've never read Free Culture, he is amused easily and takes joy in both the expression of free speech and a free internet.

[Autumn]

19. Nooo, I called Gibbs a turd.

But please, thank Larry Lessig for the article on my behalf. Have no idea who he is but he sure did write a good article. Damn I shouldn't have had that second beer.

[Chan790]

23. He's a prominent activist, lawyer and author on internet free-speech, tech and copyright issues.

(Except from his bio on his blog. I could technically post the whole thing as it's subject to Creative Commons and not Copyright. I linked to the longer bio instead.)

Lawrence Lessig is the Director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University, and a Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.
...
For much of his academic career, Lessig has focused on law and technology, especially as it affects copyright. He is the author of five books on the subject — Remix (2008), Code v2 (2007), Free Culture (2004), The Future of Ideas (2001) and Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999) — and has served as lead counsel in a number of important cases marking the boundaries of copyright law in a digital age, including Eldred v. Ashcroft, a challenge to the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and Golan v. Holder.

A full bio can be found here:

http://www.lessig.org/info/bio/

He's an interesting fellow.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. He is correct, and in addition, there is a strength to the criticisms

exactly because of the high blown language Obama used about himself during the campaign. If you say you are going to be a Fierce Advocate, using the Bully Pulpit to deliver the leadership needed to move forward, and then you are a tepid sidelines semi-rival instead, repeating your opposition to just the thing we need to move forward, you have far more trouble than someone who did not wallow in self praise.
He was going to change Washington, and the world, or we were going to along with him. These are huge things to claim for yourself.
Big talk demands big, big actions and results or it is just a cynical, vapid way to play the worst sort of electoral games.
No one but him allowed for all of that high blown language. He needs to remember it, and begin to act accordingly.

[jefferson_dem]

25. "He wasn't ever a Lefty. He didn't promise to be a Lefty."

Well, that part is true.

[depakid]

26. He didn't do much to dissuade people from thinking so either

Most people aren't lawyers and policy analysts, so when they hear Obama at his first massive rally in Portland exhort universal health care 3 times- to thunderous applause, they don't think to themselves, like I did- "hey, that's not remotely close to what's outlined in his barebones plan" and "a lot of people here are going to be disappointed" when the issue comes up."

A dangerous thing, the politics of disappointment.

[Chan790]

27. A dangerous thing, the politics of disappointment...

indeed, it's the surest path to defeat. Disappointment leads to resentment and apathy. Nobody votes for apathetic losers they resent.

[depakid]

29. Paul Loeb wrote an insightful piece about it in 2008

excerpted here:

...remember that over the course of Clinton's presidency, the Democrats lost 6 Senate seats, 46 Congressional seats, and 9 governorships. This political bleeding began when Monica Lewinsky was still an Oregon college senior. Given Hillary's protracted support of the Iraq war, her embrace of neoconservative rhetoric on Iran, and her coziness with powerful corporate interests, she could create a similar backlash once in office, dividing and depressing the Democratic base and reversing the party's newfound momentum.

Think about 1994.

Pundits credited major Republican victories to angry white men, Hillary's failed healthcare plan, and Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America." But the defeat was equally rooted in a massive withdrawal of volunteer support among Democratic activists who felt politically betrayed. Nothing fostered this sense more than Bill Clinton's going to the mat to push the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Angered by a sense that he was subordinating all other priorities to corporate profits, and by his cavalier attitude toward the hollowing out of America's industrial base, labor, environmental and social-justice activists nationwide withdrew their energy from Democratic campaigns.

This helped swing the election, much as the continued extension of these policies (particularly around dropping trade barriers with China) led just enough Democratic leaning voters in 2000 to help elect George Bush by staying home or voting for Ralph Nader.

No place saw a more dramatic political shift than my home state of Washington. In November 1992, Democratic activists volunteered by the thousands, hoping to end the Reagan-Bush era. On Election Day, I joined five other volunteers to help get out the vote in a swing district 20 miles south of Seattle. Volunteers had a similar presence in every major Democratic or competitive district in the state. The effort helped Clinton to carry the state and Democrats to capture eight out of nine House seats.

But by 1994 grass-roots Democratic campaigners mostly stayed home, disgruntled. In Washington State, there were barely enough people to distribute literature and make phone calls in Seattle's most liberal neighborhoods, let alone in swing suburban districts. Republicans won seven of our nine congressional races, and reelected a Senator known for baiting environmentalists.

The same was true nationwide....

More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/hillary-and-the-politics-_b_73957.html

[ProSense]

30. The politics of disappointment isn't new

and the current level of disappointment has more to do with the economy than anything else.

There is no unusual level of disappointment with President Obama. In fact, he's running ahead of most of his predecessors at this point in their Presidency.

[depakid]

32. Denial ain't a river in Egypt, sweetie

[ProSense]

33. Obviously not,

"sweetie."

Oh my.

[jefferson_dem]

38. 88% of self-proclaimed liberals support him.

Who is in denial, really?

[depakid]

46. LOL- as with your other thread, right?

You show time and again that you have no idea how to interpret data- you only use bare numbers to use it to justify what you'd like to believe.

And in this case, like every other shallow poster who posits it- in an attempt to marginalize others.

Suffice it to say, it ain't working.

[dflprincess]

47. I was polled by Rasmussen last evening

and I told them I was "mostly satisfied" with Obama (not true). I lied so I wouldn't give the right any satisfaction. I also told them I'm extremely liberal (true).

Other people here have posted that they have lied when polled to make it sound like they're happy with the administration.

I wondered if I did the right thing. Obama & Rahm look at the polls too and if they see "extremely liberal" Democrats claiming to be mostly satisfied they're just blind enough to believe it.

Thanks for helping me make up my mind. Should I get another call, I'll tell the truth and would encourage everyone else to do the same.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

37. Some felt destined to be disappointed...

and nothing he could do would change that.

Our side does suffer from an "enthusiasm" challenge going into 2010. That's why it's important that the message of progress and accomplishment and the threat of roll-back and teabaggery gets out there. Why not join in that fight instead of looking within for your token enemies?

[JoeyT]

36. I never thought he was a lefty.

What I did think was that he valued civil liberties. With all the "fierce advocate" and "return to the rule of law" and "respect the constitution". At least one of those were mentioned in virtually every speech he gave. Then there were the explicit promises to close Guantanamo, end secret rendition, stop spying on Americans, bring accountability to the people responsible, etc etc.

Guantanamo can maybe be blamed on the Senate. Or at least that's what people are blaming it on.
So what constitutional violations have been walked back since Bush left office? None. Not one. Zero.
Anyone been held accountable? Of course not. Well, unless you count the people that are trying to get information to the public that shows just how bad the war crimes actually were. THEN we're all for prosecuting people, apparently.

It seems we're expected to "Look forward" in regards to broken campaign promises too.

[myrna minx]

39. K&R n/t

[Carolina]

42. K&R