« Previous Story | Front Page | Next Story »


Raw Deals and Emotions: The Morning After

By David Cogswell
Opinion | December 7, 2010

HOBOKEN, N.J. - A highly respected friend and colleague told me I should be careful venting rage in such a powerful forum as Kansas Free Press. He thought that the article I wrote in response to Obama's compromise over tax cuts for millionaires was so fueled with rage that it sounded as if I was advocating against supporting Democrats. Right off the bat let me disabuse anyone who may have shared his impression. Yes, I was enraged, and I think I was expressing the justifiable anger of the heartland. But no, I don't want to abandon the country to the right wing. I just want the Democrats to fight as fiercely as they do.

I have no problem with admitting I am wrong, or changing my beliefs about an issue when I learn more about it. In this case I don't withdraw my complaints, they still have validity to me when taking the macro view of things. But after the initial rage has subsided, I am capable of appreciating other perspectives, which don't negate the other points, but can coexist with them. Seen with different lenses, different frames of reference there are things I appreciate on further reflection. And I feel since I gave vent to my outrage, I should give vent to more moderate impulses that are an appropriate background for my complaints.

Let me be clear. As angry and disillusioned as I often am with Obama, it is the farthest thing from my intention to urge withdrawing support from the Democrats and surrendering even more power to the right wing, that small but well-financed and determined faction that pushes so much weight in Washington. My complaint with the Democrats is that they don't oppose the Republicans nearly enough. They don't sufficiently reflect the interests of the population they represent. They give too much weight to the wishes of lobbyists and donors. Not as bad as the Republicans, but way too much. Yes, I still think this is true, but there are other considerations also worthy of attention.

My feeling is that the Democratic party is historically the party of the working people and rather than abandon it we the people should take it over. The people the party is supposed to represent should take it over. My complaints about Obama are within that context. I am a supporter in the sense that I believe that mainstream America needs a leader, but any real leader of the people musts represent their interests, and at this time the most important matter for the middle class is to resist the attack that is now being waged upon them by Corporate America. Again, I refer to Rep. Bernie Sanders for an eloquent explanation of what that battle entails (http://tinyurl.com/36qxyzt).

As someone who wants Obama to succeed in fulfilling what he reached for in his campaign rhetoric, who feels invested in that success, I still believe that what Obama should do is to re-invent himself and come out as a true warrior. Yes, part of such a reinvention is theater, but that is an important part of leadership. I think he needs to lift his head up from the minutiae of governing a bit and reconnect with the people, give them a reason to be charged up. He doesn't have to run the entire foreign policy of the United States as a public relations exercise as Karl Rove did for Bush, but he needs to put a little more attention into getting his message to the people.

I am one who has personally benefited substantially from healthcare reform, because my daughter, who was kicked off of insurance when she graduated from college, was able to get on my policy again and have health care. So I deeply appreciate the reforms Obama and the Democratic Congress put in place. My other complaints in a larger sense are not invalidated by that. We should not have surrendered the public option and so much more to private industry who are engaged in very questionable practices. But both points of view can coexist side by side.

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post explained today some of the nuances of the deal that was made versus the likely alternatives at this juncture in the road. Accepting the fact that the Republicans represent total predatory greed, it was impossible to get unemployment benefits through without conceding the tax cut for millionaires. That is the argument, and it's a reasonable assertion. The result was going to be much more beneficial to the cause of restarting the economy than any likely alternative if bypassing this compromise, according to Klein. It was more important to get money in the hands of those unemployed people to get the money circulating again to charge the economy than it was to fight against the tax cuts for millionaires. That's a deficit issue, Klein said, and it's not as pressing as rebuilding the economy. It's a reasonable argument and a good reason to accept the compromise and get moving, rather than have all those unemployed people hanging on an uncertain future as the issue is debated.

I will only go so far in judging Obama's behavior. I may complain, but ultimately I know that I thankfully do not bear any of the responsibility he bears, so I can not ultimately say what he should do. But given that context, I can still restate my earlier complaints. My friend said that this outcome was set in the last election. But a part of me rebelled against that. It is only true if you accept the narrative now being pushed into the noise machine by conservative forces. The election was a denunciation of Obama's policies, they say, and of course they single out the policies that they oppose, the "liberal" policies. They don't refer to the wars or the bailouts of banks but not people, the failure to extend Medicare to everyone. They interpret the election to mean a triumph of right wing policies, while almost nothing indicates that, accept for the behavior of one very confused minority, the Teabaggers.

The Blue Dog Democrats, the ones who were more like Republicans, got badly beaten in that election, and the more liberal Democrats did better. Obama can accept the inevitability of further compromise with the right if he accepts their narrative of what happened in the election. I don't want him to accept that narrative. I want him to seize the initiative, rewrite the narrative. I want him to take an existential leap that transforms the political reality. This is possible, but it takes inspired leadership. Obama has the talent. He needs a conversion. It could happen.

I like Norman Mailer's definition of the phrase "existential politics" in his essay "The Existential Hero." I would like to share it with Obama.

An existential political act, the drive by the Southern Negroes led by Martin Luther King to end segregation in restaurants in Birmingham, an act which is existential precisely because its end is unknown, has succeeded en route in discovering more of the American reality to us.

If a public speaker in a midwestern town were to say, "J. Edgar Hoover has done more harm to the freedoms of America than Joseph Stalin," the act would be existential. Depending on the occasion and the town, he would be manhandled physically or secretly applauded, but he would create a new reality which would displace the old psychological reality that such a remark could not be made, even as for example the old Southern psychological reality that you couldn't get two Negroes to do anything together, let alone 2,000 has now been destroyed by a new and more accurate psychological reality: you can get 2,000 negroes to work in cooperation. The new psychological realities are closer to history and so closer to sanity and they exist because, and only because, the event has taken place...

Obama stands at a crossroads of fate, and we with him. His success is essential to the extent that the American people really are in danger, not from Al Qaeda, but from forces of destruction within. And we really need someone to pull it together so we can survive and move forward, rather than to collapse into dissolution. Unfortunately, the Republicans are bent on Obama's destruction to such a degree that they seem to have no concern at all about how far down they bring the country as they fight to utterly destroy the administration. I think we are foolish to underestimate the threat we are under. The Republican vision of obstruction, stasis, resistance to any progress or modernity, is the picture of New Orleans under water. Their policies, as expressed by the Bush-Cheney administration and now, lead to collapse of social structures and reversion to feudal systems of social organization. The US now has the income distribution of a Banana Republic.

So to be clear, I am a supporter of Obama in terms of the general outline of the vision he articulated in his campaign. But I want to see him put up more of a fight. I want to see him become what he so clearly has the potential to be, a transformative leader.


9 Comments

Is this Kansas City, Kansas, or Kansas City, Missouri? Or, as its title implies, is it just free of any Kansas?


David, So what your saying is "wait, I didn't mean it". Then you try to make up for it by quoting MLK and taking a swing at the favorite targets of the left - Bush. Good ole Bush. Blame everything on ole Bush. Geez, won't you drop it already the man is gone! Sir you said what you said and you meant it and you have no reason to apologize. It's ironic that you accuse Obama of being a compromiser but now you too have changed your message due to pressure. If this "highly respected friend and colleague" really did get on your case because you spoke your mind then maybe he isn't so much a friend is he? A true "friend" would support you no matter what. As for your message, Democrats in office should never, ever, feel they can do what they want and just take your vote for granted.
My friend, if you got something to say shout your message from the rooftops and don't ever back down.


"As powerful as Kansas Free Press?" RIIIIIIGHT. We're all just hanging by a thread waiting for the next post from KFP to decide what we think. Delusional self importance is the worst kind of delusion.


"So to be clear, I am a supporter of Obama in terms of the general outline of the vision he articulated in his campaign. But I want to see him put up more of a fight. I want to see him become what he so clearly has the potential to be, a transformative leader."

Me, too. And if KFP isn't fairly well read and somewhat influential, why are these right-wingers posting on here to argue with us on the left? You'd think they'd be ignoring us.



KFP is read enough that one of its writers started the fight between Wink Hartman and Mike Pompeo


I very much enjoyed this article. Bernie Sanders (while he is now a Senator) is one of my personal heros. The question of the Kansas Free Press being read is irrelevant. The point is to have a discussion about the important issues. David, I have not always agreed with your analysis but I respect and enjoy your views. That's what this site is about. We must have a discussion to further our state and our country. I really liked this one though.


Come on, Brad. You're messing with me. I very specifically stated that I was not saying, "I didn't mean it." I was not backing down from what I said. I was not changing my message due to pressure. However, the idea that a person can't change his mind and should never back down is ridiculous. You change your mind when you change your mind. I didn't change my mind here, but I reserve the right to change my mind any time. That was Bush's big idea, "Stay the course." When you've screwed up, keep doing it and make it much worse so you never have to admit you were wrong and finally just pass your problems on to someone else.

When you're wrong you admit you're wrong and move on. When I'm wrong, I don't mind admitting it. But I was not saying that this time. I was elaborating on what I had said in order to clarify my position and to dispell any misconceptions as to the context of my remarks. It was a part two to the article. And it could use a part three. As to pressure, there's no such thing. My friend is still my friend and would be no matter whether he agreed with me on this or not. I do agree with you, however, on one thing you said, that Democrats should not take their supporters for granted. Certainly that idea is implicit in both articles. And they are really not that far apart.

As to quoting MLK, I didn't quote MLK. I quoted Norman Mailer who described what it would mean to be an existential politician who would not just accept a situation as it is, but would take action that would transform the situation. And I said Obama has the potential to be that kind of transformative figure, but is not really living up to that potential now, and it's very disappointing.

As to the complaint that I was "blaming it all on Bush" and telling me to "give it up the man is gone" you are completely off. I blame Obama for Obama's actions and there are plenty of them that anger me. But there is no question at all that Bush's outrageously irresponsible squandering of our national budget on wars he launched on false pretenses is at the root of our fiscal crisis now. Three trillion dollars down the toilet. He is not "gone" and the consequences of his irresponsibility certainly won't be gone for a long long time. Bush took this country down. I have my issues with Obama. In too many ways he is furthering the Bush disaster and he is trying way too hard to compromise with the right wing, who will always be against him no matter what he does. But Obama didn't take the country down, Bush did.


hhkansas, you mock the idea of KFP being referred to as a "powerful forum." I agree with independentkansan that the point of whether KFP is read a lot is not particularly important and what is important is to have a discussion. I give great importance to much smaller forums than that of KFP.

If you were a high school teacher with 30 kids in your class and you discussed issues, it would be an important forum that could have far reaching effects on the lives of those students. And the participants in the discussion would be worthy of your earnest efforts to express yourself clearly and not misrepresent your views. Whether your audience is two people or two million does not change this principle. The idea of telling anybody what to think doesn't enter into it at all.

My friend was expressing respect for the forum of KFP and the people in that community, no matter how many there are, and I agree with that sentiment. It's public, and when you shoot your mouth off in public you have some responsibility to respect the people you are talking to. Obviously KFP doesn't have the circulation of USA Today. But I still consider it a powerful forum. It was powerful enough to get a rise out of you.


Well whatever David. I still say you were trying to back off the things you said earlier because, well I dont know. Maybe as you say you wanted to just clarify your points, maybe you were having second thoughts, or maybe you were nervous as to how people would perceive your article, maybe a bit of all three. But perception is what matters and many times a writer's audience will take things differently than what the author means. BTW, your right you only mentioned MLK, you did not quote him. Sorry on that one.
As for Bush I think your wrong when you blame all the nations problems on him. All of his policies, including military spending, had to be approved by congress and the senate which since 2004 has been in control of democrats and the problems that lead to the mortgage crisis dates back to Clinton times so he isnt totally to blame.


Post your own comment here


Do you want to read more? You've only just scratched the surface at the Kansas Free Press. We have so much more to read! Nearly all of the pieces published here are timeless and relevant, regardless of when the articles were first published. To discover more, please take a look at our Table of Contents or go back to our Front Page.


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links below (clicking through from our site) to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the shopping links provided on a Kansas Free Press page, you are directly helping to support the Kansas Free Press:



About This Page

This page contains just one story published on December 7, 2010. The one written previous to this is titled "The Raw Deal" and the story published right after this one is "Open Debate and Discussion"

Our most current stories are always updated on our Front Page.

Other Archives

Interested in other topics? You may wish to poke around in our Table of Contents to find other sections and archives.

Do you want to explore pieces written by specific authors? You can find archives for KFP writers by reviewing our complete Directory of Authors and Writers here.

Recently Featured Stories

My Response As a Kansan to Jessica Valenti

Jessica Valenti has come on board The Nation magazine to fill in for Katha Pollitt as the feminist columnist while Pollitt is on leave to write a book. I've found reading Valenti's columns thought-provoking and insightful. She often takes …
Of Angels and God's Dogs

There might be a whole group of us out there--people who value our relationships with animals on a par with our ties to people. "Get over it--it was just a dog" does not resonate with us. Our society places …
Of Angels and God's Dogs

There might be a whole group of us out there--people who value our relationships with animals on a par with our ties to people. "Get over it--it was just a dog" does not resonate with us. Our society places …
Roots of the n-word

While N-word dialogue has slackened following Saline County Commissioner Gile's use of it recently, the word still has great power. So, let's look inward at the N-word. To reach a much deeper path to understanding, simply go to Ad …
Corporate Tax Reform

Basehor, Kans.--For an interesting twist on the corporate tax debate, look at Alan Sloan's opinion in the April 29 issue of Fortune Magazine. In all of the froth about corporate taxation, neither proponents of tax reduction, nor corporate critics, …

News and Opinion





Get Connected

See our FB page!
Subscribe for free!
[Feeds & Readers...]
Follow Kansas Free Press on Twitter, too!
Make Kansas Free Press your home page!

Journalists, sign in.

We're reader supported!

Whenever you use the specific links below to begin any of your online shopping, a portion of your sale goes directly towards the support of this site.

Tech Depot - An Office Depot Co.


Our sponsors help us stay online to serve you. Thank you for doing your part! By using the specific links above (clicking through from our site) to start any of your online shopping, you are making a tremendous difference. By using the shopping links provided on a Kansas Free Press page, you are directly helping to support the Kansas Free Press.

Thank you for your help!

Notices & Policies

All of our Kansas Free Press journalists are delighted that you are here. We all hope that you come here often, sign in and leave us comments, and become an active part of our community. Welcome!

Our writers are credentialed after referral to, and approval by, the editor/publisher of KansasFreePress.com. If you are interested in writing with us, please feel free to let us know here. We are always looking for Kansans who want to write about Kansas!

All authors here retain their own copyrights for their original written works, original photographs and art works. They welcome others to copy, reference or quote from the content of their stories, provided that the reprints include obvious author and website attribution and links to the original page, in accordance with this publication's Creative Commons License.

Our editor primarily reviews stories for spelling, grammar, punctuation and formatting and is not liable or responsible for the opinions expressed by individual authors. The opinions and accuracy of information in the individual stories on this site are the sole responsibility of each of the individual authors. For complete site policies, including privacy, see our Frequently Asked Questions. This site is designed, maintained, and owned by its publisher, Everyday Citizen Media. The Kansas Free Press, KansasFreePress.com, and Kansas Free Press are trademarked names.

© Copyright, 2008-2012, all rights reserved, unless otherwise specified, first by the respective author, and then by KFP's publisher and owner for any otherwise unreserved and all other content.