* who supported Proposition 8 by saying “there are about 2 percent of Americans are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let 2 percent of the population…change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.”

* who, on abortion, says: “it is kind of a charade in that people say ‘We believe abortions should be safe and rare,’… Don’t tell me it should be rare. That’s like saying on the Holocaust, ‘Well, maybe we could save 20 percent of the Jewish people in Poland and Germany and get them out and we should be satisfied with that,’… I’m not satisfied with that. I want the Holocaust ended.”

* who is so committed to a culture of life that he believes “God puts government on earth to punish evildoers” and therefore unreservedly agrees with Sean Hannity that we should “take out” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran.

So for Warren, (i) we must all obey the 5000-year-old laws of all the world’s religions (if they all agreed that stoning adulterers is okay, then we ought to do so); (ii) those who are pro-choice are akin to Nazis (doesn’t he know that ancient Greek religion thought it was okay to kill the newly born? Why shouldn’t we obey those 5000 year old laws?); and (iii) our government’s existential purpose is to stop evildoers, so murdering foreign heads of state is okay by life-loving Warren. On the whole, Warren’s view seems to be this: if the world’s religions enjoin X, X must be the law of the land. Except if X is something Warren doesn’t happen to like — say polygamy — then and only then it shouldn’t be the law of the land.

And yet the selection of Warren doesn’t bother me for the same reason as most liberals. It seems to me that this choice is totally in keeping with the theory that has driven Obama’s whole campaign. This theory — let’s call it the Separated Parents Theory of American Politics — states that what was wrong with the last eight years of American politics — and American politics more broadly since 1968 — has been a Vietnam-fueled family squabble among liberals and conservatives.

According to this theory, our most important problem has been bitterness, divisiveness, disrespectful disagreement among members of the American family, a sort of looming divorce between what George Lakoff would describe as “strict fathers” (conservatives) and “nurturing mothers” (liberals). Obama, like Bill Clinton, the product of a broken marriage, seems to hate it when boomer Dad and Mom are fighting. He hopes, through a change of tone, to bring the two warring camps together. If only they could stay in the same room and be civil to each other, maybe we could start getting things done! It is the fantasy of the child heroically helping Mom and Dad reconcile that makes Obama’s campaign so symbolically powerful, especially — I suspect — among younger voters for whom boomer political strife seems almost incomprehensibly bitter. Ergo, “strong-Dad” Warren, who — whatever you think of his politics — is about as mainstream as apple pie among certain communities in this country. Including him is a way of (presumably) forcing “nurturing-mom” LGBT activists to stop “being so shrill,” and learn to have a respectful conversation with those they disagree with.

As you can tell from my account above, my problem with the selection of Warren is not Warren himself — though I strongly disagree with his politics — it’s that this choice reveals yet again how deeply Obama believes in the Separated Parents Theory. And if Obama keeps repeating this theory, using his bully pulpit to give it credibility, others might come to think it’s true. But in my view this whole way of talking about politics is deeply misguided. That is, though grounded by a grain of truth — politics does make us mad — this theory is very misleading.

The problem with the last eight years hasn’t been that Strict Dad (say, George W. Bush) and Nurturing Mom (say, Hillary Clinton) have been at each other’s throats in partisan rancor. No, in fact, there has since 9/11 (and before) been a high level of bipartisan accord on all the most important — and destructive — decisions that have been made. Hillary Clinton and Senate Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq war. Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats were advised of — and either supported or tolerated — our torture policy. Pretty much everyone eagerly voted for the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. On gay marriage — the one area where one can plausibly claim a difference of policy preference is leading to disdain and anger — both major presidential candidates agreed completely: Marriage is between a man and a woman, though some civil rights should be extended to homosexual partners.

Given the overwhelming evidence of the last eight years, how can anyone take the Separated Parents Theory seriously?

Against the Separated Parents Theory of American Politics, then, I present what I hope will become a regular refrain on this blog: the Bad Policy Theory of American Politics. The problem with Warren is his politics. His delivering the invocation doesn’t matter because he is not being appointed to Obama’s cabinet. His invocation does matter because it suggests that Obama and those who believe in his narrative of family strife overestimate the importance of tone in their critique of the last eight years and underestimate the importance of Democratic complicity in the most horrific policies we have embraced. Indeed, you have to admit, whatever else you think of Warren: he takes a very civil tone as he espouses the most horrible, destructive ideas.

(x-posted on Plasma Pool.)

(i) From the WSJ:

President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say

…

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama criticized many of President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism policies. He condemned Mr. Bush for promoting “excessive secrecy, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping and ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like simulated drowning that qualify as torture through any careful measure of the law or appeal to human decency.”

As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA’s interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

Yet he more recently voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision.

The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.

Is this what Obama meant when he spoke about bipartisan cooperation and a turn away from ideology and a return to getting things done? Apparently, to call for the unambiguous end of the CIA’s use of torture would be shrill, non-pragmatic, ideological, the hallmark of the looney left. If so, consider me all of the above. Let us hope the WSJ is wrong in its assessment, and let us always remember that the Iraq war was implemented in a highly bipartisan way.

(ii) From Reuters:

President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise – to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans – as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday

…

His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.

“The main thing right now is to get this economic recovery package on the road, to get money in the pockets of the middle class, to get these projects going, to get America working again, and that’s where we’re going to be focused in January,” Axelrod said.

Let’s get this straight: Obama campaigned on the promise of raising taxes on a certain segment of “high-income” Americans. He won. He might be said to have received a mandate from the American people to do so. Does anyone think it’ll be easier to return to this promise in 2011?

(iii) As I’ve written before on this blog, in agreement with Obama’s campaign rhetoric: Real change comes from below, not from above. If we want Obama to live up to his promises, to end the war, to end torture, to dismantle our unaccountable national security state, to fix our economy in a way we approve of, voting for Obama was never going to be enough.

The real work must happen now. Obama may be the nicest guy in the world, but one man doesn’t rule this country. There is a whole system of individuals and organizations responsible for our problems, which have been decades in the making, not the result of the maniac fringe of the Bush administration alone. Only a system can change a system. And a system that theoretically allows a Bush to go unchecked needs to be changed.

As I wrote:

Obama’s weakness, his dependency on large numbers of enthusiastic (mostly progressive, but somewhat cynical and alienated) voters, is our strength. Politicians should ideally fear their supporters. They should be terrified of betraying their supporters because doing so, theoretically, ought to destroy their credibility and careers in the long term.

So here’s to the so-called “netroots.” Keep twisting the screws. Keep putting on the pressure. Make Obama sweat.

This is even more true now than it was during the campaign. Let’s not deceive ourselves here: the netroots are weak in American politics. They wield little influence and are only now learning how to exert power in the political system. But eight years ago, there was no netroots.

Our goal needs to be systemic reform; our horizons in this medium- to long-term project should transcend individual election cycles and parties. We should create a system of government that can push back against and hold accountable a Bush or — god forbid — a Palin in the White House. Our current system is not up to the task.

Stewart writes the following:

President-elect Obama’s emphasis on Afghanistan and his desire to send more troops and money there is misguided.

…

We invaded intending to attack Al Qaeda and provide development assistance. We succeeded. By 2004, Afghanistan had a stable currency, millions more children in school, a better health system, an elected Parliament, no Al Qaeda and almost no Taliban. All this was achieved with only 20,000 troops and a relatively small international aid budget.

When the decision was made to increase troops in 2005, there was no insurgency. But as NATO became increasingly obsessed with transforming the country and brought in more money and troops to deal with corruption and the judiciary, warlords and criminals, insecurity in rural areas and narcotics, it failed. In fact, things got worse. These new NATO troops encountered a fresh problem — local Taliban resistance — which has drawn them into a counterinsurgency campaign.

More troops have brought military victories but they have not been able to eliminate the Taliban. They have also had a negative political impact in the conservative and nationalistic communities of the Pashtun south and allowed Taliban propaganda to portray us as a foreign military occupation. In Helmand Province, troop numbers have increased to nearly 10,000 today from just 2,000 in 2004. But no inhabitant of Helmand would say things have improved in the last four years.

If what Stewart writes is a correct characterization of the situation in Afghanistan, then the continued presence of the U.S. (and NATO) in that country is not improving security — for either us or them — but is actually making things worse. Our presence is not only not improving the national security of the U.S. but may actually be working against our long-term strategic interests — however you might want to define those — by using resources wastefully and without a clearly defined (achievable) objective. Which is to completely ignore the moral case, either for or against the war.

Our presence in Afghanistan is, by this account, only increasing human suffering in the region and doing little to nothing to eliminate the Taliban. Of course, Stewart’s characterization of the situation in Afghanistan may be completely incorrect. Is there some other alternative narrative that better accounts for why we’re in that part of the world? Is Stewart obviously incorrect about any of his facts or judgments? It seems to me the burden of proof rests with those who argue for remaining, given the human misery war always necessarily unleashes, and not with those who argue for stopping what may well be a counterproductive war.

Which isn’t to say that those who argue against continuing the Afghan war can’t make a compelling case.

Lo and behold, his prediction bore out:

So we’re not talking about theory anymore – we’re talking about empirical fact. The media has exponentially increased the amount of times it claims that this country is a “center-right nation” – at the very same time public opinion data shows the country is a decidedly center-left nation. In short, we have the two hard data points proving that as the country has become more progressive and validated its progressivism on election day, the media has increased its claims that the nation is conservative.

Sirota is basically correct in his assessment, in my view, though he doesn’t go into detail about why it might be that everyone in the press seems to want to pretend that this country is basically “conservative.” Part of the answer is undoubtedly that many Americans self-identify as conservatives while actually supporting what the press would call “liberal” positions. The demonization of liberals has been systematic and ongoing for decades.

But it is worth pointing out that this demonization is present with most intensity and viciousness not among some fringe groups — as Sirota claims — but in the heart of the respectable mainstream. Witness the case of The New Republic’s James Kirchick, writing in the NY Daily News:

Barack Obama isn’t even President yet, and he’s already angering some of his most devoted followers on the party’s left wing. This is the mark of what could be a very successful presidency.

“With its congressional majority, the Democratic Party has refused to seriously try to end the war, to stop the bailout and to stop the trampling of civil liberties, just to name a few off the top of my head,” wrote David Sirota on the popular liberal blog OpenLeft, decrying the serial betrayals of Obama and the congressional Democratic majority. The Democratic Party, he wrote, has “faced no real retribution” for its manifold heresies, something that Sirota believes he and his band of angry bloggers must change. “We better understand why this happened,” he fumed.

Allow me to provide an answer. You don’t matter.

…

Given the intensity of blogger rage over Lieberman, one can understand how their defeat at the ends of their own party would lend itself to hyperbole, but when did the “American people” appoint Markos Moulitsas their spokesman? And while there are many ways to interpret the outcome of this year’s presidential and congressional elections, that voters across the country wanted Joe Lieberman to be stripped of his committee chairmanship is not one of them.

Indeed, the only people who seemed to give a fig about Lieberman were the “Netroots.” Along with abandoning Iraq to Iran and Al Qaeda, punishing the “traitor” Joe Lieberman was their paramount concern (know that in the minds of Netroots, Lieberman hasn’t only committed treason against the Democratic Party; a quick perusal of the more popular liberal blogs will also find the words “Zionist” and “Likudnik” attached to his name). Most Americans probably recognize Lieberman as the guy who ran with Al Gore in 2000. But to the Netroots, Lieberman is an obsession, an individual who inspires mania. He is the worst thing possible: not only someone who disagrees with them about foreign policy, but a liberal who disagrees with them on foreign policy.

That’s right, you non-mattering demonic liberals you — i.e. arguably a supermajority of the U.S. population — by supporting the withdrawal of the military from Iraq you are in favor of “abandoning Iraq to Iran and Al Qaeda.” If you happen to think that Joe Lieberman should be published for deploying the vilest of attacks against Obama — who made a point of helping defend Lieberman against Ned Lamont and his netroot supporters — then you’re some kind of (implicitly anti-Semitic, or anti-Semitic by association) nut.

Personally, I don’t really care that Lieberman has been allowed to keep caucusing with the Democrats. There is something to be said for reconciling after a tough election with your opponents. What bothers me is that Obama’s cabinet is increasingly shaping up to be precisely the sort of center-right cabinet that commentators like Kirchick are ready to praise.

Shouldn’t an Obama cabinet include officials who are unapologetic liberals? That is, not a cabinet of only liberals, but a cabinet where the voices of what Kirchick would call the Democratic party’s “left wing” (the Kuciniches or even Edwardses of the party) are audible. The so-called left wing partly contributed to helping get Obama elected. Is it unfair to ask for a voice — not dominance, mind you, but just a voice — at the table? Is there some left voice in Obama’s cabinet I’ve missed? If the left doesn’t get a voice, how should it respond?

Update (11/23)

Glenn Greenwald addresses the question posed by my post and comes to a conclusion I largely agree with:

So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn’t Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered.

…

It goes without saying that there will be Obama policies, both in the foreign policy and domestic realms, that are vastly superior to what we’ve seen the last eight years and to what we would have seen had McCain/Palin won…

But Barack Obama is a centrist, establishment politician. That is what he has been since he’s been in the Senate, and more importantly, it’s what he made clear — both explicitly and through his actions — that he intended to be as President. Even in the primary, he paid no price whatsoever for that in terms of progressive support. As is true for the national Democratic Party generally, he has no good reason to believe he needs to accommodate liberal objections to what he is doing. The Joe Lieberman fiasco should have made that as conclusively clear as it gets.

The point isn’t that this reality should just be passively accepted and nothing done about it. The point is that for anything to be done about it, the reality needs to be accepted. The campaign we began earlier this year with Accountability Now and are now vigorously developing and pursuing — to devote all resources and energies to defeating incumbents in primary challenges — is grounded in the premise that one’s political beliefs and principles will be ignored until there is a price to pay for ignoring them. Democrats don’t perceive there is a price to pay for ignoring progressives, and so they do. That isn’t surprising. What would be surprising is if, under those circumstances, anything else happened.