Why Obama Doubles Down: Liberal Views

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

--George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945)

Many liberals have helped explain why Obama has chosen to disregard popular opinion in the aftermath of the Democrats' epic January Massachusetts senatorial election defeat. To me, most of their reasons come down to appreciating that some of us, including our president, are brighter than others.

Anna Quindlen in Newsweek:

A very smart man once said, "Telling the American people what we think they want to hear instead of telling the American people what they need to hear just won't do." That man was Barack Obama, and that attitude is one reason he got elected. He should stick to that position, and the American people should embrace it.

The New York Times' Tom Friedman, from Davos, Switzerland:

developing countries are looking for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now tattered “Washington Consensus” of open markets, floating currencies and free elections. . . [T]here is growing talk about a “Beijing Consensus” . . . a “Confucian-Communist-Capitalist” hybrid under . . . a one-party state, with a lot of government guidance, strictly controlled capital markets and . . . authoritarian decision-making . . . capable of making tough choices and long-term investments, without having to heed daily public polls. [emphasis added]

Liberal commentator Jacob Weisberg, in his “funny, ha, ha”-titled article, “Down With the People”:

the American public lives in Candyland, where government can tackle the big problems and get out of the way at the same time. In this respect, the whole country is becoming more and more like California, where ignorance is bliss and the state's bonds have dropped to an A-rating (the same level as Libya's), thanks to a referendum system that allows the people to be even more irresponsible than their elected representatives. Middle-class Americans really don't want to hear about sacrifices or trade-offs—except as flattering descriptions about how ready we, as a people, are, or used to be, to accept them. We like the idea of hard choices in theory. When was the last time we made one in reality? [emphasis added]

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for the liberal “Daily Beast”:

Obama[, by deciding] to double down on health care. . . has forfeited any chance of bridging the red-blue divide. [At the same time, he] has cemented his bond with the netroots . . . For the netroots, a politicians’ ideological purity has always been less important than his willingness to resist pressure from the other side, which is exactly what Obama has just done. . . Democrats have decided to bet the party’s future on the belief that Americans prefer bold liberals to [the] cautious.

Game Change, John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's book on the 2008 presidential campaign (via Peggy Noonan--Wall Street Journal, 3.11.10):

Barack Obama. . . is smart, “and he not only knew it but wanted to make sure that everyone else knew it.” In meetings with aides, he controlled the conversation by interrupting whoever was talking. He is boastful, gaudily confident. Before his 2004 convention speech, a reporter asked him if he was nervous: “I’m LeBron, baby,” he answers. “I got some game.”