Conservatives Angry Because Obama’s Team Is Too Far Left? Not Really


Hmm. New story out today in the Washington Post about how conservatives are supposedly worried that Obama’s appointees and transition team are too far to the left. That’s a wild departure from all previous grumbling, which came from progressives worried Obama’s people are too far to the right.

You could easily take this as an example of two grand truths: (1) Presidents, especially new presidents, just can’t win. Washington simply has too many people with too many different agendas. Every time a new man or woman takes the White House, his or her moves are bound to disappoint somebody. (2) If you look hard enough when you are writing a newspaper article, you can always find someone willing to complain. This is true on almost any topic.

But before we use this as a teachable moment, let’s take a closer look at the Post article. Only one conservative is on the record as complaining about Obama’s confidantes being too liberal, a man named Roger Clegg. The executive director of the Northwest Mining Association does pop up briefly at the end to whine about a former Clinton staffer who is on the transition team advising Obama on Interior, but that same mining official is said to be “comforted” by the fact that Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado with friends in the oil and mining industries, was picked by Obama to head Interior. Let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth here, folks. You’ve got the big fish on your side and you’re complaining about the little fish? (Two animal metaphors in two sentences = bonus points.)

The article mentions just four people close to Obama who raise the ire of conservatives (or would possibly draw the ire of conservatives, if anyone had bothered to go on the record). All four are advising the transition team; not one has been appointed to anything. No complaints are made by anyone, named or unnamed, about Obama’s actual appointees. A Harvard professor is cited in the article as believing “an ultra-left takeover by Obama advisers and nominees are manufactured hyperbole.” That seems about right. And this Post article fits that bill.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.