Daley is a reflection, not a cause

By Glenn Greenwald

Salon.com

January 7, 2011

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/democratic_party/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/01/07/daley

Few things interest me less at this point than royal court
personnel changes.  I actually agree with the pro-
Obama/Democratic-Party-loyal commentators who insist it
doesn't much matter who becomes White House Chief of Staff
because it's Obama who drives administration policy.  Obama
didn't do what he did in the first two years because Rahm
Emanuel was his Chief of Staff.  That view has the causation
reversed:  he chose Emanuel for that position because that's
who Obama is.  Similarly, installing JP Morgan's Midwest
Chairman, a Boeing director, and a long-time corporatist --
Bill Daley -- as a powerful underling replacing Emanuel
isn't going to substantively change anything Obama does.
It's just another reflection of the Obama presidency, its
priorities and concerns, and its overarching allegiances.

There's a section of my forthcoming book about the rule of
law which examines the direct causal line between the vast
number of Wall Street officials in key administration
positions and the full-scale exemption from accountability
which financial elites enjoy even for the most egregious
lawbreaking.  When you compile all of those appointments in
one place, the absolute stranglehold large-scale corporate
interests exert over virtually all realms of government
policy is quite striking.  But it's nothing more than what
the economist Nouriel Roubini meant when he told the makers
of the 2010 documentary "Inside Job" that Wall Street has
"captured the political system" on "the Democratic and the
Republican side" alike, or what Simon Johnson describes as
"The Quiet Coup":  "The government seems helpless, or
unwilling, to act against" elite business interests.

Shipping in a JP Morgan executive to be White House Chief of
Staff isn't a cause of any of this; it's just a nice symbol
for what our political culture is, more than ever in the Era
of Change.  It's the other side of the revolving door that
sent Peter Orszag to his multi-million-dollar a year reward
at Citigroup for his 18 months in an administration which
lavished that bank will all sorts of gifts.  Getting
exercised about Bill Daley's empowerment is like going to
the beach and being angry that it's full of sand:  this
appointment is the inevitable by-product of the essence of
Washington and of the Obama presidency.  It's what they do
and who they are.  As Matt Stoller suggested, the most
surprising thing about the Daley pick is that he has no
Goldman Sachs experience.

But I do find the angry reaction from some progressives to
be somewhat perplexing (even though I agree with the
substance of their critique and am glad they're voicing it).
On one level -- the most superficial one -- the Daley
appointment seems very strange.  Think about this: leading
progressive voices -- including MoveOn and, in a very hard-
hitting segment last night, Rachel Maddow (video below) --
have vociferously condemned the Daley choice.  By contrast,
the most enthusiastic reactions came from JP Morgan Chairman
Jamie Dimon (who first suggested Daley), the Chamber of
Commerce, the Third Way, and Karl Rove.  Beyond that, Daley
was an outspoken opponent -- in public -- of two of Obama's
most prominent legislative items:  health care reform and
the financial regulation bill's consumer protection agency.
Why, angry progressives seem to be asking, would Obama
ignore the views of his so-called "progressive base" while
seeking to please those who are his political adversaries?

But it's perfectly rational for Obama to do exactly that.
There's a fundamental distinction between progressives and
groups that wield actual power in Washington:  namely, the
latter are willing (by definition) to use their resources
and energies to punish politicians who do not accommodate
their views, while the former unconditionally support the
Democratic Party and their leaders no matter what they do.
The groups which Obama cares about pleasing -- Wall Street,
corporate interests, conservative Democrats, the
establishment media, independent voters -- all have one
thing in common:  they will support only those politicians
who advance their agenda, but will vigorously oppose those
who do not.  Similarly, the GOP began caring about the Tea
Party only once that movement proved it will bring down GOP
incumbents even if it means losing a few elections to
Democrats.

That is exactly what progressives will never do.  They do
the opposite; they proudly announce:  we'll probably be
angry a lot, and we'll be over here doing a lot complaining,
but don't worry:  no matter what, when you need us to stay
in power (or to acquire it), we're going to be there to give
you our full and cheering support.  That is the message
conveyed over and over again by progressives, no more so
than when much of the House Progressive Caucus vowed that
they would never, ever support a health care bill that had
no robust public option, only to turn around at the end and
abandon that vow by dutifully voting for Obama's public-
option-free health care bill.  That's just a microcosm of
what happens in the more general sense:  progressives
constantly object when their values and priorities are
trampled upon, only to make clear that they will not only
vote for, but work hard on behalf of and give their money
to, the Democratic Party when election time comes around.

I'm not arguing here with that decision.  Progressives who
do this will tell you that this unconditional Party support
is necessary and justifiable because no matter how bad
Democrats are, the GOP is worse.  That's a different debate.
The point here is that -- whether justified or not --
telling politicians that you will do everything possible to
work for their re-election no matter how much they scorn
you, ignore your political priorities, and trample on your
political values is a guaranteed ticket to irrelevance and
impotence.  Any self-interested, rational politician --
meaning one motivated by a desire to maintain power rather
than by ideology or principle -- will ignore those who
behave this way every time and instead care only about those
whose support is conditional.  And they're well-advised to
do exactly that.

It is probably the case that a lack of enthusiasm on the
part of the Democratic base contributed to the Democrats'
defeat in the 2010 midterm election.  But what Obama cares
about is getting re-elected in 2012, and he knows full well
that come March or April of that year -- if not earlier --
most of the progressives who are now continuously
complaining about him will be at the front of the line
waving their Obama banners, pulling out their checkbooks and
whipping into line anyone who is not similarly supportive.
By contrast, corporate institutions and Wall Street tycoons
will pour their money into Obama's defeat if he does not
show them the proper level of deference and accommodate
their policy demands, but will support him (as they did in
2008) if he pleases them.  Resource disparities between
those factions are significant, but it's also due in part to
their own choices that Wall Street is empowered, and
progressives are irrelevant.

If someone wants to lend unconditional support to Obama and
the Democrats, there's a cogent (if not persuasive)
rationale to justify it.  But what I find baffling is that
those who make that choice -- and who make clear that this
is their choice -- then express surprise, anger and scorn in
situations like the Daley appointment when the White House
so blatantly ignores what they want.  Given the posture of
progressives, why would the White House possibly do anything
other than ignore them (except when they're deliberately
attacking them in order to appear more centrist)?  What
motive does the White House have for doing anything other
than that?  None that I can see.

[Glenn Greenwald was a constitutional law litigator in New
York, and is now a Contributing Writer at Salon.

Greenwald's first two books were New York Times Best
Sellers: How Would a Patriot Act?, published in 2006, which
critiqued the radical executive power theories of the Bush
administration, and A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil
Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency, examining the
legacy of the Bush administration for the United States,
released in 2007.]

===

Rachel Maddow- Obama makes centrist statement with Daley
selection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhVhkPMqRC4

==========

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate