Why am I doing my happy dance?

Because I'm about to send a message to Katrina vanden Heuvel. Sort of.

Katrina vanden Heuvel,

Hello, my name is Bryan Rainey, and I am a junior at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis, Indiana. For my AP Language project this quarter, I was required to follow and analyze the work of an opinion writer in a blog. I have been following your articles for the Washington Post, and my project can be found at http://brainey1.blogspot.com/. For my last blog post, I analyzed how you shaped your argument in the article "Obama: On the way to a failed presidency?" found here.

I've really enjoyed reading your articles, and I would sincerely appreciate it if you answered a couple questions. Are there any additional issues to which you could refer me that relate to Obama's recent steps to compromise with Conservatives? In addition, are there any specific articles you have written that you would recommend for me as a Liberal high school student?

Thank you for writing such bold and eloquent articles recently; analyzing them was a great experience for me!

Bryan

I have mixed feelings about this. Because Katrina vanden Heuvel does not leave her email address at the end of her articles, I have attempted to contact her through The Nation's website. I clicked on the link to contact The Nation, but I'm not exactly sure what it means to contact an entire magazine. I ended up addressing it to Katrina vanden Heuvel anyway. I don't know if that's allowed, but I wasn't going to address the message to an undefined group of people, and I don't think I had many options.

We'll see what happens. Hopefully I can write a follow-up blog post if I get a response, but if not, it's been swell.

Obama's "historic mandate" and counting in German

Katrina vanden Heuvel straightforwardly asks a frightening question in the title of her recent article for the Washington Post: Obama: On the way to a failed presidency? The simple answer is, if things don't change, yes. Vanden Heuvel stresses that the political and economic adjustments Obama has begun to make since the 2010 elections will be detrimental to his presidency and to the American people.

Since the polls closed in November, Barack Obama has taken a more right-wing mindset on issues like Afghanistan, bipartisanship, and, above all, the economy. Vanden Heuvel claims that the president's freeze of federal workers' pay symbolizes his abandonment of a focus on jobs, which is the key to improving the economy.

Additionally, vanden Heuvel characterized Obama's recent compromises with Conservatives as not only a retreat but also a disorderly "rout" within her second argument point. The president who was dancing with Ellen two years ago is currently sacrificing not only his reputation but also the welfare of the American people by planning to cut back on Social Security while extending Dubya's tax cuts for the rich.

No matter how much I could try to paraphrase vanden Heuvel's third argument, I would still end up sounding like an inarticulate bumble. Huge text reference time! "Forget about electoral mandates or campaign promises. This president has a historic mandate. Just as Abraham Lincoln had to lead the nation from slavery and Franklin Roosevelt from the Depression, this president must lead the nation from the calamitous failures of three decades of conservative dominance." This is by far my favorite part of the article; vanden Heuvel so boldly (and eloquently) takes the pleasure of defining what she believes to be Obama's presidential responsibility (which he is currently not living up to), and I think I drooled after I read it.

That final argument, I believe, perfectly epitomizes all of my favorite aspects of Katrina vanden Heuvel's writing: she's a self-proclaimed progressive, and you have to deal with it. She concedes nothing. Oh, that reminds me -- Mrs. Sander, there are no concessions in this article, so I'm not skipping out on part of the assignment. Personally, I think the lack of concession works well for vanden Heuvel since she takes such bold stances. One could say that it parallels the fact that she doesn't want Obama to compromise with Conservatives (so why should she?).

Because of how juicy that last argument is, here is a list of facts, reasons, and examples vanden Heuvel employs as support. They all revolve around what Obama should be doing to get America headed in the right -- rather, the left -- direction.

• The government cannot invest properly because of social inequality caused by right-wing tax policies.
• Avoiding financial speculation while promoting manufacturing would stabilize the global economy.
• Going green would give the United States a lead on global environmental policies.
• She refers to "destructive military adventures abroad" that the White House should unwind.

That was fun.

All of that was about Katrina vanden Heuvel, and I'm a very self-centered person, so it's time for the moment of truth. (First, a moment of parenthetical suspense.) YES! I agree with my op-ed writer. I wish that we could go back to the days when Obama was dancing with Ellen and America was captivated by his awesome rhetoric and his ability to inspire the country with hope, because with each battle Obama settles with compromise (pick your favorite battles I've discussed in this post and my last post), we slowly return to a country dominated by a conservative mindset.

I've been psychotically looking forward to writing the last part of my post; that's right, it's time to make connections, numbered in German.

Nummer eins: I adore vanden Heuvel's connection to President Lincoln. Luckily, I've come prepared to analyze it because of history class this year. It is ingrained in my mind that Lincoln's main goal as president was to keep the Union together. In a way, I think this goal has lived on; the main goal of all presidents is to keep the Union together -- not necessarily in a time of looming secession, but perhaps in a time of political controversy and economic recession. President Lincoln freed the slaves not to keep states in the Union (eleven states were long gone by that time) but to keep justice and equality in the Union. President Obama is faced with a responsibility to keep the Union together in rough political and economic times. But it's more than that. Just as it was Lincoln's "historic mandate" to free the slaves to keep democracy alive, it is Obama's "historic mandate" to stand by his campaign promises to keep hope alive.

Nummer zwei: Vanden Heuvel talked a little bit about switching political parties in her article, so here's a rundown of my favorite traitors. Woo! First, Peter Pettigrew, who betrayed Harry Potter's parents, both of whom were killed by Lord Voldemort when Harry was a baby. Second, Darth Vader, who became entrenched in power as little Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars. Finally, Benedict Arnold, who switched from the American to the British side of the American Revolutionary War because he felt that the British would respect him more. All three were motivated or intimidated by power, all three were too weak to refuse it, and all three ended up losing (technically, Luke Skywalker found the good in his father, but I see that as a destruction of Darth Vader and the rebirth of Anakin). As a result, the word "traitor" carries one of the most harsh connotations possible: you're weak and you're going to lose. My request is that we stop throwing the word "traitor" around for people who compromise, because (concession alert) compromise and betrayal are two totally different things. So thank you, Katrina vanden Heuvel, for not using the word "traitor" or "betrayal."

Nummer drei: What the heck do Conservatives think about this mess? After looking at a dedicated progressive's negative opinion, you would think that they would be happy about the compromises. Ah, do I even hear myself? I need to cut the silliness; everyone has stuff to complain about! Allow me to promote Jimmy Henke's blog post about the same issue but from a Conservative perspective. I like this post a lot because it shows that it is immensely difficult for a president to please anyone. Jeffrey T. Kuhner used the word "betrayal" right off the bat, and he defined Obama as a failure rather than a potential failure.

Personally, I think Obama's a sharp guy, an amazing speaker, and an inspiration. But right now, he's got an issue on his hands that transcends any other: how to discern and carry out at this pivotal point in history the best path for his reputation as president and for the United States of America.

What to do about all these elephants

Many progressives look at the new wave of red in DC in an optimistic light. For the next two years, we may not control the House of Representatives (as you can see in this deliciously interactive map), but we're still holding on to the Senate and the White House. We're still holding on to the filibuster and the veto. Our representatives still have significantly more hair than their opposition. Republicans don't have that much power.

"Wrong," declares vanden Heuvel.

In her most recent article for the Washington Post, vanden Heuvel argues that new right-wing representatives will have extraordinary power, and progressives should uncompromisingly reinforce their stance.

Now, that's a pretty bold statement, so you may need to take a step back and eat a blueberry muffin before you continue reading. Hopefully the muffin will help, but if not, vanden Heuvel backs up this daring viewpoint with solid facts and logic.

The first half of her article appeals to her audience of progressives, and she uses a simple formula. A Democrat (for example, Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial House Services Committee) has had positive accomplishments (a financial reform), but a Republican replacement (Spencer Bachus) has negative plans (a government shutdown to stop this bill). Readers should have no trouble understanding that the new majority in the House disturbs vanden Heuvel.

Then, she takes it a step further: while the Democrats fight this battle, they shouldn't be a in a compromising mood like several "Blue Dogs" are. That's far out, dude, especially since Obama himself intends to cooperate with the new Congressmen. But her reasoning is compelling. If Democrats don't fight for what they stand for, their plans will disappointingly fall apart before their eyes. What's important now is to unify -- and if we can get the support of the president, then all the better.

As I sat in front of my computer eating mini cinnamon bagels when I read this for the first time, I probably should have fallen asleep. I mean, really -- "here's something that'll shock my readers: politics." But I made it through the whole article because of her enchanting imagery. Let me tell you, this is just seductive.

First, when she describes a few of the new Republican Congressmen, vanden Heuvel warns that they will "wield and use substantial power." Shing! Either these politicians are avenging their father's death, or they're fighting for Narnia. Regardless, the word "wield" is extremely powerful; no longer is the political clash a bunch of debates and speeches -- now, it's a full-out classic battle. Maybe on horseback.

All right, so what happens if the Democrats don't fight back and accept cooperation? They will watch their agenda "for which they fought -- and lost -- steadily erode." In saying this, vanden Heuvel effectively warns of a defeat that will be dangerous, slow, and painful. Let's sum it all up, then. If the Democrats don't do anything, they'll be sliced in two with a sword; if the Democrats compromise, they'll suffer a torturous death. Neither one of these options seems too appealing -- but in the sense that vanden Heuvel is trying to get progressives to take action, it's extremely appealing.

These crisp images, paired with decorative references to looming "destruction," allow for no room to compromise with vanden Heuvel. The only option is to look toward the "silver lining," the unyielding progressive standpoint, which she notes is one of the most unified factions in the United States.

So look out, President Obama! "I mean, 'look out' in a fun way! Not like I'm gonna hurt you" (Andy Bernard, The Office).

A brief gander into the life of vanden Heuvel

Nothing says "you will value my opinion" quite as well as this intense closeup of Katrina vanden Heuvel.

First thing's first: "VAN-din WHO-vuhl."

A progressive writer, vanden Heuvel is most famous for editing and publishing The Nation, the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, nicknamed "the flagship of the left" (hence my blog's title, which is German for "to the left").

Try to have a staring contest with this picture; I dare you.

Her work has been featured in newspapers across the country and on several television and radio networks. In Nach Links, I will be focusing on her weekly columns in the Washington Post.

No matter what angle you look at her picture from, she'll always be staring right back at you hungrily. Allow me to direct your attention to a photo of vanden Heuvel's magazine to your right.

Vanden Heuvel has received numerous awards, including the Planned Parenthood's Maggie Award, New York University's 1988 Olive Branch Award, and, in 2003, the New York Civil Liberties Union's Callaway Prize for the Defense of Right of Privacy -- or, if you prefer, the NYCLUCPDRP.

Dedicated to her work, Katrina vanden Heuvel is orderly and reads through five newspapers every morning, has a husband and a daughter, and enjoys long walk on the beach. Well, that last one is an assumption, but I think it's a safe one, don't you?