"The Last Word," sooner than you think

It took Lawrence O'Donnell only three days to demonstrate why his hosting tenure at MSNBC is more imperiled than a clear thought in Sarah Palin's mind.

O'Donnell's "Last Word," as you know, follows "The Rachel Maddow Show," which is overpatronized by uberprogressives enchanted by Rachel & Guests' habitual exhortations for progressive pols to fight, fight, fight. Fight 'em all, fight 'em all day, fight 'em every day; fight and ye shall be rewarded. That's Ms. Maddow's message, that's what her audience laps up, and that's the audience that Mr. O'Donnell has inherited, to his detriment.

For O'Donnell is imbued with an alternative habit. Given his years spent on Capitol Hill as a top Senate aide, he can't help but disclose certain political realities, all of which many rank-and-file progressives choose to peremptorily dismiss. They just don't want to hear about rude, inconvenient, immovable obstacles in their way; if only President Obama and Congressional Democrats would "fight," say these progressives, they would more often carry the day.

Last night O'Donnell, while speaking with David Axelrod, at once illuminated and ridiculed this fanciful mantra: 

[W]e had on this show last night one of the leaders of the groups that the president's talking to, Adam Green. He's the leader of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. He was encouraged by what he heard in Wisconsin yesterday, primarily because he heard the president use the word "fight." His point was, he doesn't think that you and the president, when it comes to legislating, when it comes to governing, are fighting. And I guess someone has to break it to Adam Green and others that no one fights. These guys in neckties do not fight. They ask each other to do things and they are empowered to say no. And their outcomes are not controlled by campaign rhetoric or by the image of the presidency.

O'Donnell's realpolitik will endear him to few among the activist progressive base (which I hasten to distinguish from pragmatic, old-school liberals), whose dreamy cheerleading and amateur boosterism do more harm to the cause of American progressivism than even Jim DeMint could conjure. Like the ideological tea partiers, they simply tune out what fails to reinforce their strategic prejudices. That in itself neutralizes their understanding of the world and thus their own progress.

Mr. O'Donnell, yours hosting days, as they say, are numbered.

Comments

[Marc McKenzie]

PM, another great post.

The sad truth is that progressives like Green only see the fight. They do not see, nor are they concerned about, the results, the aftermath. Pragmatic liberals such as you try to make others aware of what could happen, and that politics is a long hard slog, but...the words fall on deaf ears.

It's been that way for over 40 years. Sadly, I do not see it changing anytime soon, judging by the attitudes on display during this campaign season.

[Sue Zoon]

Keep on playing "Long Ball"!

[fireblazes]

So all those grand words Obama Obama used to get elected were just a bunch of lies, and with him knowing the realities of "Inside the Beltway" he never actually intended to do any of the things he promised? So in reality what he meant was: I will try to hope, I will kinda try to change things.

[fireblazes]

I would say we have been flim-flammed.

[Bernie Latham]

First visit (via link at C and L).

You've stacked cliches on generalities on presumptions to make a rather unstable layer-cake of a thesis here.

Any social movement or political coalition can be charted out on some variation of the bell curve with the strident folks often most visible. Nothing new in that. And it's usually the case that those folks, through visibility and activism/passion, do much of the initial work of moving consensus from an old paradigm to a new (womens' movement, civil rights, environmentalism, anti-abortion, etc). And because of visibility along with relative (to the bell curve) extremism, this component of a movement/coalition will also, predictably, become the target of PR/propaganda from those opposed - "See. Liberalism is THIS thing" or "Hah. We knew conservatives were like THIS."

Aside from all that, your portrait of Maddow's show is superficial and cliched. No other cable or network show, for example, has come close to the depth and excellence in reporting on astro-turf operations as her show has done.

Still, your thesis will be subject to empirical testing. Will O'Donnell's audience fall away or hold/grow? I personally have not the slightest urge to tune it out through some motivation such as you imply will drive viewers away (cognitive dissonance, too much reality, complexity, inconsistency with dogma).

[Edwords]

OK. So Obama is up against a tough Congress. But did he need them to
dump Gates and the neocons when he took
office?

He had to pump up Afghan.?

He had to let the Dobsons hijack
National Prayer Day(again)?

He couldn't fire Alan Simpson?

[TireBiter]

Hmmmm. Isn't the Tea Party's message fight, fight, fight too?

[Wendy]

Actually, as much as I enjoy Rachel and agree with her and think she's brilliant, I am able to think and appreciate Lawrence's insight from inside the process. Please don't assume that progressives are unable to analyze. That's the other side.

[Rich Nichols]

Speaking as an old school Liberal who's not afraid to call himself a Liberal, I disagree with your assessment.
Rachel's urging to fight seems to me to be a call to fight the powers which are meant to keep US out of Congress. A cause Lawrence has powerfully railed for during his many hosting stints. For him to be focusing his first week of show topics on his in-house experience is unsurprising and welcome. We all could use a dose of Washington process reality.
But to suggest progressive newbies don't understand Congressional realities, or worse don't want to, is rather naive on your part. I think they understand the realities all too well. They see republicans using the system to crush a liberal agenda at every turn. And why shouldn't they be upset when dems give a mile for a meager quarter inch?
As an old school Liberal I DO think we should fight, inside and outside Congress. I agree with Rachel, Adam Green and Lawrence. We should be blasting away on all three perspectives. I am sick of 'liberal' being viewed as a dirty word. I am sick of lefties who claim they aren't going to vote or donate because they are disappointed. What? are we to wait another two years, six years under a Repub Prez, ten years with a two term run? How much damage are we to except before we have to make signs reading "Reinstate Social Security"?
Instead of disparaging the new progressives as simple-minded and myopic, why not encourage them to watch Lawrence's show. Give them reasons an inside perspective is a good balance to Rachel and Adam. They need leaders not mommies telling them the stove is too hot don't touch! Tell them why Liberal is a damn fine thing to be.

[Peter Everts]

Bull roar. Obama could have "fought" for single payer by opening his frigging mouth and telling the truth about US (non)healthcare at the outset instead of malingering for a year of puking, mewling Republican lies. Instead, he kowtowed to insurance millionaires and Republicans in the name of b.s. bipartisanship. "Fighting" for something simply means having the balls to stand up for what you say you stand for. Otherwise, you're a coward.

[Charlie]

A couple of truths need to be told here. First of all Obama is a conservative, hes not a liberal who refuses to fight, hes a stone cold conservative doing exactly what the conservative ruling elite groomed and paid him to do. Second, MSNBC is owned by General Electric who is one of Americas largest conservative war profiteers. They lak serious liberal credentials nor will they ever criticize their parent company. Their main role is to control the narratve.

[katy]

wow... i beg your pardon...

insulting people is not helpful.

what Wendy said, @9:09 ...

[TheSkepticalCynic]

The MSNBC Lineup

I am not that familiar with Ed Schultz, not having watched/listened to him that often because of his time slot. When I have done so, I found more positives than negatives.

I'm more familiar with Chris Matthews... actually would prefer to be less familiar with this bloviating "Mugwump".

I think that Olbermann does a great job, notwithstanding an occasional 'over the top' harangue.
I think Rachel Maddow is fantasic (although she did shed more than a little bit of "glitter" with her recent shockingly far less than erudite, bordering on the irrational, verbal abuse of Iran's President Ahmadinejad. (One could surmise that this was more as "directed" from higher ups, rather than her own thoughts. Her brief rant could have been delivered in Hebrew in the Knesset to a standing "O".)

I think Lawrence O'Donnell's "smackdown" of CT Republican Senate nominee Linda McMahon on his Thursday show establishes O'Donnell's "street cred" among Aggressive Progressives. One can be Aggressive without being reckless.
Having been a Union contact negotiator for nearly 40 years, I learned early on that that process is a combination of three games. Chess, Tennis and Poker. You've got to think at least three moves ahead;
Keep your opponent at the baseline, i.e. do not she/him get to the net;
know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em.(Going "all in" on every hand is for chumps.)

[Liberal AND Proud]

This is just another White House strategy to punch the hippies, AGAIN to try and bring the left wing "back in line".

[rickster]

what a load of flapdoodle.

[Mike Taylor]

I was so hopeful we were going to finally have a demorat in office to undo some of the damage the past 30 years have wrought, but unfortunately what we got is exactly what Charlie at 10:38 stated. Just more of the same!

[Batocchio]

O'Donnell's pretty hit or miss. He has a point here, but that's an extremely simplistic, (bordering on disingenuous) depiction of what Green said. More importantly, if you read the wide range of the liberal blogosphere regularly, you'll find plenty of policy wonks and plenty who understand legislative sausage-making pretty well. And if they don't get one specific effort or not, all that's taken is an explanation. "Fight" in Green's context means pushing for your goals and adopting basic negotiation strategies – start high up and bargain down to get closer to what you actually want, and don't concede things while getting nothing in return – as occurred on the stimulus bill and frequently on health care reform. Liberals correctly noted that the stimulus was too small, that it was watered down by ineffective tax cuts for the Republicans, and that the Republicans still said they wouldn't vote for it. Liberals correctly noted that Baucus was always a weak player, and an extended delay to work on Grassley - who was demagoguing on death panels, no less – probably wouldn't accomplish anything. The stimulus worked, but wasn't big enough on the good stuff, and in case you haven't noticed, that's now a major factor for the midterm elections. So I'm wondering, at what point does O'Donnell's critique actually have anything to do with reality, rather than being a smug, straw man attack on someone's word choice? Maybe next time you can provide a link to a transcript or embed a video clip, so if there was a better, more detailed critique we can evaluate it.

I've lost track of how many liberals I've seen explain that they don't want a pander, they want results. The major criticism of the Obama administration and the congressional leadership has been substantive and *about* the results. The tribal cheerleading is mostly the other side, although if you want voter turnout, morale is kinda important. As Dave Dayen's pointed out, when in the history of politics has insulting one's base been effective for turnout? Additionally, poll after poll shows that voters want politicians with clear principles – who will "fight." Of course negotiations behind closed doors have more nuance. But when I read your post, it seems like you and O'Donnell think that liberal activists aren't aware of that, which is ridiculous.

When Ted Kennedy died, one of the sharpest observations was that when he emerged from some session and effectively said, "This is the best deal we could get," he was believed, because he had earned that credibility as both a true liberal and as a practical, savvy negotiator. Both are important. Obama and most of the congressional Dem leadership haven’t really earned that cred, and hippie-punching doesn't help. Similarly, Bill Clinton discussed one of his flubs (financial reg. IIRC) and said he should have tried, even if he lost that fight – "I should have been caught trying." Come on, it's not as Reid is working the levers expertly like LBJ.

Sorry, this take reads as awfully smug, dismissive and reality-challenged. Don't implicitly claim you or O'Donnell are smarter or more political savvy – show it. Your line that "dreamy cheerleading and amateur boosterism do more harm to the cause of American progressivism" is smug, inaccurate and unsupported. Make your case next time. If O'Donnell or you want to apply this critique to an actual issue, and show how the pieces are moving, go ahead, but that takes much more work, and perhaps more honesty as well.

[daphne]

Keith is clever and passionate; Rachel is fascinating and brilliant; Lawrence is predictable and a bore.

[Hedges Ahead]

Unfortunately, O'Donnel neutralized the enjoyment I had had for his show with his Megan McCain interview. For one, it's too talking-head formulaic to present two positions and ask a guest to pick one (For McCain, it was a choice to agree with either her father or Lady Gaga's stance on DADT). But pressing McCain to comment on the O'Donnel comments (Christine this time) re: pro or anti-self love had all the tact of a dirty joke told by your uncle.