Reminder: Obama Told Us To Judge Him, and Pressure Him

I chatted with the Washington Post on Friday about Barack Obama's recent moves to the right. You can read what I told them in the Post's big story from yesterday. It juxtaposes nicely with an important post from Chris Bowers at OpenLeft, in which he urges us to judge Obama on his actions -- and not come up with wild theories to explain them away. I can't agree more.

If this populist uprising moment is going to be harnessed into a real progressive movement, we need to see candidates as means for the movement -- not ends unto themselves.

To follow up on Chris's terrific post, I want to point out that Barack Obama told me that progressive activists should judge him explicitly by what he does -- and not come up with wild theories that absolve him. Here's the money quote from my article on him in The Nation two years ago:

"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in," Obama said.

So by Obama's own admission, when he casts, say, an anti-progressive vote on civil liberties, we shouldn't whip up wild fantasies about him supposedly doing it because he actually is progressive on civil liberties. We should believe that he is, in fact, anti-progressive on civil liberties. That is, we should judge him on his actions.

Of course, in the same interview, Obama then said this:

"The thing that bothers me is the assumption that if I make a judgment that's different from yours, then it must mean I am less progressive or my goals are different, meaning I must be not really committed to helping people but rather I am trying to triangulate or drift toward the DLC [Democratic Leadership Council]."

This struck me as odd in that he is simultaneously saying we should judge him by his votes, but then saying we shouldn't. I take this latter comment as him just being a politician who doesn't like pressure (or, in his words, is "bothered" by it), and is therefore trying to pre-empt it.

It's the first comment imploring us to take him at his word that I think we need to take most to heart. Obama is telling us very clearly: If and when he moves to the right on key issues, we should take off the partisan blinders, shy away from the excuses, judge him by his concrete actions -- and apply pressure accordingly. This comes on top of Obama's talk about the need to build a movement to hold him and others in public office accountable.

That makes things pretty clear: Those who think they are being Obama loyalists by either concocting apologist rationales about his behavior or telling everyone to shut up when he runs over the progressive movement are not just harming the progressive movement by supplanting it with Partisan War Syndrome. They are actually being disloyal to Obama by defying what Obama himself says he wants us to do.

This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising through your local independent bookstore.

Comments

[cdub1991]

First--there's nothing contradictory about the two Obama quotes. Essentially, what he is saying is, "measure twice, cut once" before jumping to a conclusion. One of the advantages--and disadvantages--of being an intellectual is that he is able to think and chew gum at the same time. Consequently, issues are not as simple as they always look. Having firmly held beliefs does not excuse one from looking at an issue holistically.

Second--Obama is left of center, but he is a pragmatist first and he is interested in what can be done as much as what should be done. Those of us who live in the real world recognize that the two are not the same. The first shapes immediate tactics. The latter is the endgame and informs your choices. There is always a dynamic tension between the two.

Third--Obama is a constitutional scholar--his positions often are not going to be purely progressive. Hell--I think handguns should be outlawed, but I acknowledge that you have to do intellectual backflips and fancy parsing of language to think the 2nd amendment doesn't grant an individual right to own guns. The intellectual in me sees that. The progressive in me knows that the 2nd amendment has outlived any usefulness it ever had and has to go. Dynamic tension.

Last--an Obama victory isn't about progressivism. It's about returning rational and responsible governance to Washington. I believe rationalism leads to progressivism, so it's win-win. It's process, however, not revolution.

[HWNA]

I'll judge Barack Obama when he is President.

Until then, he is a candidate who needs to get elected. If he doesn't hold up his end of the bargain during his first 1-2 years in office, I will be the first to lead the charge to nominate a challenger to him in 2012.

[smoo]

Man. You progressives are so narrow minded. It's unbelievable. The phrases used in this article like "run over progressives" etc. I took to mean just what he said. I took his comments to mean "don"t tell me what plays to call, I'm the damn coach." Listen progressives, just because you made the team doesn't mean you call the plays. African-Americans and young people could be saying the same thing. They too were responsible for his elections. You populist or progressives are starting to remind me of hard-core Hillary supporters that think that like to think that 18 million people are as fanatical as they are. Well I got news for you guys, you did a very good job in spreading the word and getting out to vote, but you are not the only ones on the team and if you were than Kucchinch, not Edwards, would have been your guy. You see how that played out. Senator Obama's success was made possible with the support of your efforts, not strictly because of your efforts.

Good keep up the pressure, but don't get all bent out shape because you didn't get your way. You act like he lost the game on this issue, all he did was punted. Why, maybe, just maybe it was not the right time to do otherwise. You know... that can actually be possible.

[tompoe]

"AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal." This quote is from the judge in the AT&T surveillance case. Obama says, . . . well, we know, right?

What Bush and gang have done, is not republican, nor is it democratic. Maybe it's neocon whatever. What Obama says, amounts to something that is not political, it amounts to constitutional overthrow. If the telcos get immunity, it won't be because elected officials differ in policy matters. Our country is in deep trouble. Who stands to protect our country, if not McCain, or Obama? Maybe they both think we're locked into who becomes president. I say, impeachment is not limited to Bush. Obama can expect to be put on notice.

[tyrdofwaitin]

Thanks smoo for reminding us that we -- the so-called progressives -- aren't the only game in town and we aren't the only ones who will get Obama elected. Chill --- it takes patience and love to mount an enduring revolution: Barack's aware of that; are you?

[darthdarcy]

Any chance for years of even a slight slant towards populism died with John Edwards Campaign we've got to wait at least two more years for any populist candidates to emerge in Congressional races..but Obama is no populist never was and not a progressive either...he's barely liberal if even that..

But we're stuck with him, and the important thing is to vote against Republicans...

Simple as that..

[rosal]

First, if he doesn't win, there won't be a chance for him to clean the mess Repugs are leaving behind. He has to move to the center to win. If he cannot please everybody, how is a Repub in the White House going to please anybody? Those that say they won't vote for him just ruin ANY chance ot improving things in the country.

[AlButerol]

OK, I'll take Obama at his word. By voting for the new FISA law, he is effectively saying he has no regard for the privacy of US citizens as guaranteed under the fourth amendment. Actually whether he believes this or he voted this way as a purely political decision make no difference. I can't vote for someone who either 1) doesn't support our constitutionally guaranteed rights or 2) doesn't deem it important enough to defend these rights.

[tyrdofwaitin]

Fine blog: careful, sensitive, nuanced and progressive. I have seen my share of leftist and progressive groups fall on their faces because 1) they have split the finest hairs of orthodoxy; gatekeepers for each ideological stripe determine who's faithful the the cause and who isn't. I can tell you that this attitude has done more to undermine the progressive struggle than anything the right-wing has done.

2) the equally injurious feature of our movements is our predilection to idealize our leaders: we don't allow them to be human; we don't allow them mistakes and we don't hold them accountable for what they say they they are going to do. Rather than acknowledging Obama 's errors,we paper them over "for the sake of the cause" or, rather than simply holding him accountable for his promises, we demonize him as a traitor to the cause and seek to destroy him because --- "He has ceased to please us."

Sirota has exquistely captured the essence of our dilemma: Do we de-idealize Obama and hold him accountable for his actions or do we look the other way, find rationales for his poor decisions and wake up one morning to find -----that we have lost Obama as an effective leader because we have abandoned him a long time ago. There's no good leadership without good followership. Let Barack know when he's on track and when he's veered off and away from his promises. And do it with love.

[texanna]

Somehow I never thought of protecting my 4th amendment right was splitting "..the finest hairs of orthodoxy..". In fact, the matter seems pretty cut and dried to me -- we either are protected from illegal search and seizure of our telecommunications or we're not. Apparently, Sen. Obama thinks it's OK to not be protected. What's really comical about the capitulation of the Legislative Branch is that they are the ones the Bushies have as #1 on the list of "Those To Listen To". Oh, wait, that's probably the explanation isn't it? Well, that and all that Telecom dough that all of those currently in office have collected so recently,

[tyrdofwaitin]

I agree texanna, the 4th amendment is irreducible. The question is, as a concerned progressive, what now? That's where we fall on our faces. Any ideas?

[Titonwan]

Sic em Dave! I'm up to here with lily livered apologists telling me I'm wrong for simply wanting the damned truth. I'm from Springfield Illinois and I was there when he kicked his campaign off. I have been bloodied in the primary wars and did everything but carry him on my back. But as sure as the sun rises in the east, he screws us on this FISA bill, I'll not only NOT vote for him, I'll work just as hard in the other direction. That's change he had BETTER believe in. The tragedy of it all is that's the ONLY thing I want to see. He can have any other agenda in the world and I'd be cool with it, but THAT'S the deal breaker. I was raised with the motto "your word is your bond". I don't like liars.

[Jonni Rae]

He did not change his position of the gun issue. He always said he believed the Constitution allowed the people to bear arms, but just like the right ot own property is subject to zoning laws of states and cities, so is the right to own a gun subject to regulation by cities and states. Scalia basically said this in his decision. As for FISA, I think he needs to share his thinking on this decision. I am a supporter and I don't understand it. I think it is ok for supporters to call him out on this, in hopes that he will change his mind, or at least explain his decision to support it. But I don't think it is okay to put all the blame for this ineffective compromise bill on his shoulders, or to jump ship because of it, or to threaten to work against him. Perhaps the telecoms fund a lot of campaigns of Dems - I know they funded the Clintons. Maybe this was part of the deal for unity. We do have to win, you know, in order to make the changes we need.

[NotMcCain]

The FISA Bill has a loophole. Obama WILL be able to pursue criminal prosecution in 2009--just not civil.

Watch Olbermann tomorrow. John Dean has been studying FISA and will explain what the wording is to those who -haven't- read it.

I'm as progressive as anyone, but I trust Obama's judgment on this one. We want him as the party leader--Let's give him a chance and let him lead.

[Douvie]

Bravo, David Sirota.

[BitJam]

Obama supporters,

If you are against capitulation on FISA, please join us at:

Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SenatorObama-PleaseVoteAgainstFISA

[washington31]

HMMMMMMMM.

[PorkBelly]

I agree with the overall content of your post.

However, I think it is a much more important strategy to keep in mind when he is actually in office.

It does us no good to scuttle Obama's chances during the GE.

[AuntSally]

He's already "actually in office." He's a U.S. senator.

His position on FISA is fundamentally different than, say, commenting on Supreme Court decisions because, in the case of FISA, he's actually casting a vote. Now. Not a year from now; now. He's shaping our nation.

He could choose to shape it -- now -- on the side of protecting citizens from an overreaching government and leaders, present and future, with tyrannical tendencies. He could choose to oppose this bill and rally the legions of support he has across this nation to pressure their senators; he could deliver a major victory against disastrous Bush policies before even becoming president. Now wouldn't that be something to behold!

So far he chooses differently.
I choose not to overlook his choice.

[mypov123]

Would you overlook them if you knew that McCain had a very good chance of winning in November?

[ToeJamSam]

Obama is his own man and will support or reject whatever suits his needs.

Get over it.

[harriscrl3]

Obama said he would listen he never said he would do what they wanted. Imo Progressives need to STOP acting like Obama is president. WHat they are not telling you is that since he shifted to the right he is up by double digits over McCain as far as indepdents so they are benefits he is getting from shifting to the center. Progressives act like no other president who has been on the left has shifted to the center thats how you win because most people are not on the far left or far right they are in the CENTER.

Carol

[Hadok]

Obama is being accused of having tacked right on FISA, gun control, and capital punishment.

If he has done this, it is because...

a) The November election is actually closer than most predicted. The conventional wisdom is that the Republican brand is so damaged that ANY Democrat will be elected in a walk. If Obama thinks that the race is so close that he must shift to the center to pander for centrist votes, then perhaps the election IS way too close, and perhaps Obama is not the strong candidate we thought he was.

b) If, in fact, the Democratic candidate WILL win in a walk because of the damaged republican brand, it is not needed for Obama to do anything to get more votes. Rather, he just needs to avoid doing something stupid. In which case, this unnecessary pandering for votes is not smart, but dangerous.

c) Perhaps he is just expressing his true views on these issues, and is being honest. Perhaps he is NOT pandering for votes. Perhaps he sees the need for FISA, gun rights, and the death penalty, and is willing to say so. If so, good for him. Much to my admiration and much to the chagrin of the left wing. Of the three possibilities, this is the most reassuring.

[washington31]

As a biracial man he cannot just go for the librel votes. Once the GOP starts running racist adds, he is going to need every d@mn vote he can get. It's nice that we all can forget that his is half black, and I really love that. But, not everyone is like us. Some will have second thoughts about voting for someone who looks black. He will need every vote, not just liberal and Progressive. CAN WE ALL KEEP THIS IN MIND.

[Krikkit]

Or maybe he isn't tacking at all and the media, as usual, is applying the wrong lessons learned again. They are dinosaur sell outs to their corporate overlords. We need to stop taking in their brain-rotting messages.

My bet is on c) and I would agree with b) except that the Greedy Old Perverts and their corporate puppet-masters may find a way to rig the election again.

[aofh]

I'm betting on c). I think he has shown us a man who respects nuance, so the two statements that DS quoutes need not be contradictory. He has implied that he is not happy with FISA but is confident that the IG will ensure that the rules are followed and that he understands that the gun question is generally different for those living in the city than those living in the country. The death penalty response sounds to me like the emotional response of a parent with young daughters. I am willing to accept his actions as genuine and not pandering, but I also want him to show me his thought process. In showing his thought process, he is saying the issues have substance and is inviting real debate into our politics. Our current politics seems to reduce everything to binary options. Our debate and our democracy are poorer for it.