The Kagan question (for progressives) made simple

During today's excellent debate on Democracy Now over the Elena Kagan SCOTUS nomination, the term "pragmatic progressive" was brought up by Amy Goodman. Apparently the White House has been using the term to describe Ms. Kagan. Glenn Greenwald rightly noted that the same term is used by President Obama's loyalists as a way to justify many of the policies most frustrating to Obama's progressive supporters and critics.

It then dawned on me that Glenn Greenwald hasn't been accusing Kagan of being George W. Bush, as Greenwald's foe in the debate Lawrence Lessig put it. He's actually accusing her of being a lot like Barack Obama, and he's right. Of course it makes perfect sense that Obama would nominate someone who tries to solve problems in the same manner that he does. I wouldn't call it pragmatism because I happen to think that it's the wrong approach. I would call it a non-confrontational approach to dealing with opposition to their goals. This would explain why Ms. Kagan has been hesitant to publicly make her views known on so many issues. Like Obama, she doesn't want to get pinned to a strong position.

It also makes sense that people who like Barack Obama find it easy to see Kagan as a good choice, because she will try to build consensus on the court in the same way that Obama tries to build it in the Congress. Hence we see the vociferous defense of her by Obama loyalists here on DU, and the scepticism by those who often criticize Obama, which can easily and unfortunately be chalked up to powerful jerks of the knee.

So if you happen to believe that Barack Obama is doing a good job of advancing progressive values, then Elena Kagan is your gal. They are cut from the same cloth in my opinion.

I thought people might want to know how I came to that conclusion. That's what the rest of the post is about.

However, neither one of them are progressives. I had to laugh when you said, "I would call it a non-confrontational approach to dealing with opposition to their goals." Now that's really funny. Obama preached transparency throughout his campaign yet has chosen someone for a key supreme court position, who has published very little. And what we do see of her is very disconcerting and alarming to say the least. Greenwald proved Lessig a liar...I suggest you catch up with his blog entries.

If the Supreme Court gets a solid 6-3 vote to the right, your children and grandchildren will become indentured slaves to the corporations for decades to come. There's nothing "simple" about Kagan, I assure you.

I think both Glenn and Larry Lessig have done some lawyerly "spinning" throughout their battles this week, but I still find Greenwald's arguments far more persuasive. For example, Lessig states that because Kagan argued the Government's side in Citizens United v. FEC as Solicitor General, this proves she's progressive, but she was only doing her job and didn't mean it when she wrote the Clinton memos. Lame.

Don't really give a damn, but I must say it surprises me.

he agreed that if liberals like who Lessig who worked with her on an intimate basis vouched for her it was significant.

nevertheless he was against her nomination.

When Barack Obama was running for president, we were told that one of his greatest attributes was his amazing ability to persuade Republicans to vote with him. How's that worked out?

Now we are being asked to believe the same thing about Elena Kagan.

As a famous American once said, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...won't get fooled again."

That is what many on liberal blogs say about Pres. Obama, but I disagree. His decisions are not based on fear of the opposition.

Did you forget when Obama was the only democrat in the room and took on over 100 republicans? He isn't afraid of repubs, as his detractors keep insisting. He just has a different way of dealing with things. He could easily take the shrill approach and stomp his feet and get nowhere, but he chooses to be strategic, which is a good thing.

You're splitting hairs.

shrill   /ʃrɪl/ Show Spelled Show IPA adjective, -er, -est, verb, noun, adverb
–adjective
1. high-pitched and piercing in sound quality: a shrill cry.
2. producing such a sound.
3. full of or characterized by such a sound: shrill music.
4. betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
5. marked by great intensity; keen: the shrill, incandescent light of the exploding bomb

taking kennedy from their side.

But has the Obama/Kagan approach worked in the Congress? So far I would say it hasn't. Kennedy may vote with the liberal block at times, but there is no evidence that it's even possible to persuade him to change his mind.