2018: Where Were These Liberal Critics When Obama was President? Oh Right, They Were Cheerleading

I am increasingly, desperately frustrated by the pervasive rationale perhaps best exemplified in this piece. This sort of "sure, I can't really name many things the Obama adminsitration has done (notice how the author cites 'the stimulus package' and 'the stimulus bill' as two completely different things) and I can't deny that they've been awful in some areas (like even worse than Bush/Cheney on civil liberties) but quit your complaining!" I suppose this brand of thinking will become more popualr as we approach a mid-term election that's one part a referendum on the Obama administration so far, and the other a question of how "crazy" and "scary" the Republicans are. But it's not just commentators like that author, even normal folks seem to be reading from the same script when it comes to sticking up for Obama: “Well at least he’s not Bush;” “You have to give him more time;” “Who else are you gonna vote for, Palin?” “He’s in a tough spot.” Etc.

If people want to deploy these arguments – rationalizations really – as why they feel compelled to vote for Democrats then that’s one thing. I certainly understand, on a human level, the fear people have of candidates like Palin, or O’Donnel, or hell even John Boehner, and, though I think it’s a strategically poor decision, it’s not unreasonable to vote against your fears. But these arguments are not actual defenses of Obama or Democrats (at least not any more than references to Ike Turner or Scott Peterson are defenses of one’s alcoholic, compulsive gambling, emotionally-distant husband). I'm of the view that you can do what you have to on election day, but the rest of the time we should be holding our leaders accountable and honestly talking about their actions.

However, some might say these issues are related, that criticizing Obama up until election day drives independents away, or lowers the “enthusiasm” of the base, or encourages would-be voters to stay home, and then the crazies take power. This may in practice be true, but the alternative is even worse: you're setting yourself up to be a giant hypocrite.

Nowhere is this alternative better demonstrated than with the Tea Party. The Tea Party is already pretty suspect because the whack-jobs that lead it, but the question of where exactly was this group dedicated to smaller government and less government spending during the Bush Administration, when spending and government excess exploded in a massive mushroom cloud, is so legitimate as to be obvious. Many people (from your averag voter, to political commentators) have used this glaring issue to describe the Tea Partiers as political opportunists, giant hypocrites and even racists (because they only get mad when a black man is President).

Whatever one might say about the accusations of racism, the one of “hypocrite” is impossible to deny, and the Tea Party movement suffers because of this. People can vote out of fear, or because Obama is handsome and smooth-talking, but ultimately, most people care about actual issues. Keeping Democrats in power isn’t the goal itself, it’s a means to achieve the end of, say, gay equality or a fairer financial system. But people do those issues a disservice if they wait to care about them (at least outwardly) only when a leader or party they don’t support is in power. That is the essence of hypocrisy, and if Sarah Palin does come to power, her supporters will be quick to label the suddenly vocal defenders of gay marriage and civil liberties as … sexist. And they’ll have a point.