Promise not to be silent again

I want to flag this piece by Greenwald. Glenn is right, in large part, and, as I have said before, the President and Congress need to have their feet held to the fire and hear the voices of change as loudly as they hear the nasty voices of those who still look to Cheney and Limbaugh and Beck and Palin. We need to continue to push Washington toward repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, to bring heat on the foot-dragging on closing Guantanamo, to hold the torturers and their commanders accountable.

But Glenn's piety makes me uncomfortable, too. Not because I am a hypocrite or an Obamaphile, but because motivation matters. Those who are reacting against the "Angry Left" and its supposed abandonment of President Obama are not just the mirror image of the Bush right. They're people who haven't forgotten their abandonment by the Nader "left" and the hand-over of America to the hard right. Nor should they.

Because, even while he drags his feet, President Obama still speaks to the principles that matter to us. Maybe our confidence in his words is misplaced, but he's all we've got.

But it's not just that. Sometimes President Obama fails to live up to his words. Guantanamo remains a sore point. We still have extraordinary rendition. So, Obama is clearly struggling with his ideals, trying to find a practical (Greenwald would say cowardly, perhaps) answer that is insufficiently liberal for the left wing.

Here's the thing. As I allude to above, President Obama is not doctrinal, he's practical. It is the quality that now, and almost always has, defined the man. He's no radical, and no ideologue. If his policies don't seem to match his words, it's nevertheless key to keep his words in mind, because they remain core, guiding principals. Where Bush was doctrinal - all policy came directly from his specific beliefs, in American exceptionalism independent of actual deeds - Obama sometimes appears to fail to achieve, or even try to achieve, the goals that we expect from his principles.

Some say that's because Obama's a realist, others because he doesn't really believe in what he says. But what Barack Obama believes has been clear for a long time - a conservative (meaning cautious) liberalism, open-minded advancement based on a realistic approach toward improvement. He's not an idealist, and never will be. He uses his political capital carefully, not arrogantly, and not in a way that squanders it in battles he calculates will end up in a loss. That does not mean he betrays principles, just that he wants to achieve those principals in practical and realistic manner.

Greenwald would say that it's nonsense, or blind faith. Glenn is an idealist, and that's great. We need those. President Obama needs those. Idealists keep us honest, when they're honest with themselves. And the President would be best served if he were surrounded by a few more of those.

But idealists gave us Ralph Nader and, as a result, eight years of George W. Bush.

Idealists gave us the neocons and a war to "liberate" Iraq.

Idealism has its limits.