Learning that Politicians Aren't Messiahs
CHICAGO - The New York Times writes today on Barack Obama's recent policy shifts. The headline (not surprisingly) distorts the frame of debate, calling the Illinois senator's critics the "far left." I'll be writing on why that is such a distortion in my upcoming newspaper column this week. But beyond that distortion, let's consider the substance of what's going on. Here's my take, as quoted in the article:
"I'm not saying we're there yet, but that's the danger," said David Sirota, a liberal political analyst and author. "I don't think there's disillusion. I think there's an education process that takes place, and that's a good thing. He is a transformative politician, but he is still a politician."
This follows a lot of the underlying message of my book, THE UPRISING: namely, that politicians -- whether Obama or others -- are not messiahs, but mere vehicles for the change we do -- or do not -- force them to embrace. If Obama's moves force more people to learn that truism, then I think that's a positive silver lining to his disappointing shifts.
Jeralyn Merritt over at TalkLeft says I'm wrong -- that Obama isn't a transformative politician. What do you think? Do you think what I told the Times was right, and that Obama is transformative, but that his moves potentially undermine his brand? Or do you think I'm wrong, that Obama isn't really transformative, and that his moves prove that?
This is an ongoing series from the national tour for THE UPRISING. You can order The Uprising at Amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Depends on what you mean by transformative?
The Bush administration has been absolutely transformative in taking what used to be a democracy and moving it toward a fascist state. Now that's a transformation, if ever there was one.
And with his vote on FISA (and his 'yes' votes on war funding) Obama helped Bush achieve his transformative ends so maybe by association Obama is a transformative figure -
And if he had voted against the illegal bush agenda i.e. FISA, then Obama would also have been a transformative figure. Either way I guess he had it nailed.
Depends on what you mean by transformative. As of today, with his vote on FISA ringing in our ears, Obama is about as transformative as, hmmmmmmm, I'd say Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Those two certainly have achieved a lot during their brief tenure in the majority - transforming the democratically controlled Congress (and what should be the opposition party) into stooges for the republicans and neocons. They have managed to single handedly transform the democratic party into a bunch of wimps who will do whatever the president says, including illegally spy on and torture American citizens. That is a new low for the democrats. So thanks Harry, thanks Nancy. And now, thank you Obama.
Obama had a chance to lead in the Senate - he could have filibustered (like he said he would) but he chose to follow instead. Transformative? How? Where? When? Because he says so or promises? He is fundamentally no different from any other politician.
Transformative? No. Man of integrity? No. Good politician? Maybe. He appears to have no more or less convictions than any other politician, whether it be Bush or Clinton. Hence we have no idea what his core beliefs are, only what he says to get elected. His primary attribute is that he is not Bush and is not a Republican. Maybe we can have a more rational discussion of running mate now? Clearly, the choice must be the running mate that helps him th most to win. I suspect that is Hillary, given all of the gaffes he has had since he became the presumptive nominee. At least she brings her voters with her and maybe she can respond for him to attacks like the New Yorker. BTW, why are any of you surprised by MSM support of racist and other attacks on Obama? This is just a continuation of the last two election cycles, they did the same to Kerry and Gore. Oh yeah, you still think Obama is different! Not to the MSM. After all, McCaine is a Hero, don't ya know?
I believe he is transformative because I, and many other people like me that I know, have started to get involved in politics for the first time in our lives. That's transformation. I don't like some of Obama's positions lately, but I never expected him to agree with me or make me happy all the time.
I, too, never expected Obama to agree with me or make me happy all the time. I did, however, expect him to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law and maybe even provide some much needed leadership in the Senate. Alas, he has done none of these. And that doesn't make me unhappy, it makes me outraged.
Obama got your attention? Good, then pay close attention to what he does, not just what he says he'll do.
Yes, passing FISA was a crime to be sure. However Obama voted the right way. His mission is to win the Presidency, not to fight for every losing cause that crops up. Once the Democrats control the White House, Senate and the House of Representatives and stops the erosion of the Supreme Court the grass root progressives can hold their feet to the fire to enact legislation that reverses the crimes of the Bush years and gets America back on it’s feet in so many desperately need areas.
Bickering and whining now will only result in a loss in November. And as if McSame will listen to your comments and concerns.
John McCain: 'I hate the bloggers!!!
http://www
Never heard the Constitution referred to as a "losing cause" before. When viewed in that sense, truly a "transformational" candidate indeed.
a. when did obama claim to be anything but human b. and when did he get sole responsibility for the FISa mess. he is still a senator with only the power of one vote.
O, yes, FISA with telecom immunity was going to pass anyway, so why vote nay. Principles__they are soooooo old democrat..
You're right. He never claimed to be a Messiah. Some of his supporters may have treated him as such, but that's their fault, not his. As a result of the pedestal THEY put him on they are now putting more responsibility for every issue on him instead of on the ones truly responsibility. I'm willing to see what he does once he's actually president, if he manages to get there.
Yes,but he's actually a Senator NOW and he swore an oath to uphold the Constitution NOW as a Senator. His duty was to vote to uphold the Constitution NOW not when and if he became president. And he blatantly chose not to. This wait and see attitude Obama supporters take is very strange. What are we waiting for? What do we hope to see? He, like George Bush and all the other dems and repubs in Congress eviscerated the fourth amendment NOW. Before our very eyes. And then he acted like it was no big deal or no big shift in his position.
"...when did he get sole responsibility for the FISA mess. He is still a Senator with onlu the power of one vote."
Ummm, as Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, he is now their LEADER. As such, he has a great deal more power than merely a Senator with a vote. He has a responsibility to lead in the direction that he wants to take the Party and, potentially, the country.
Good to know that we are only expected to view him as a herd animal, with a judgment based upon herd instinct, because THAT would be truly transformational, would it not? I always wanted to vote for a wildebeast, here is my opportunity. Yay.
David, I want to think that he's transformative, but I have my doubts. Nonetheless, I'll wait until after he is elected - IF he is elected - to judge his performance. Elections are to politicians what catnip is to cats.
Cheers!
Yes, but Obama is not just some billiionaire businessman running for office, he is a State Senator and, as such, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution now, not after January 1, 2009. He is derelict in his duty now. That says it all.
HuffPost's Pick
Obama is absolutely transformative- did anyone predict he would be in this position a year ago? His "brand" is not that he doesn't practice politics, his brand is that he practices politics with a new focus on us. He gives a voice to the average person, he helps us believe we can, we must change policies. All the noise about his FISA vote- please, he did exactly what he needed to do to win in Nov. That bill can be revised once he is president and has a Dem congress on his side. You know what they would have said had he cast a vote against FISA- "Obama votes to help terrorists make calls, sides with class action lawyers targeting corporate America". Bottom line is this- any "progressive" who changes their support from Obama to Nader need only recall 2000 and Bush v Gore. There is only one thing that matters- winning the WH in Nov. If he needs to be a politician to do it, then so be it. His brand, as far as I'm concerned, is less important than the fact that he is a thoughtful, intelligent man whose policies will change the USA and the world for the better.
It's interesting that this open and shut, lesser-evil, end-justifies-means paean to Obama is a "HuffPost's Pick".
A neo-liberal conservative Democrat who will do or say whatever it takes to win, and who casually backhands populist and progressive constituencies at every opportunity is as "transformative" as a chameleon. We been there before.
A professor of constitutional law who reverses his position and supports anti-constitutional legislation because it's the percentage play is every bit as much of a hack as his predecessors.
Your messiah has proven himself to be just another Pied Piper.
Perhaps he knows that fixing things is a process and not all-or-nothing. And, at this point, yes, the lesser of the evils is the best choice. You're never going to get perfection in a candidate, senator, governor, president or whatever. Expecting such is immature.
Everything that he's done is contraindicative of changing FISA after the election. You're projecting your wishes onto him.
'Obama is absolutely transformative- did anyone predict he would be in this position a year ago?'
No, a year ago I thoroughly expected Obama to vote 'no' to telecom immunity and to vote 'no' against any law that contained such a provision. So, by your definition, he's transformative all right.
I agree to a certain extent and Obama himself has said this. I think people think you vote for a politician and then you trust them and you go about your lives. NO it doesnt work like that you HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. This fisa may be a good thing because it shows people that we have to keep being engaged 365 days a year every year not just when there is a presidential election ALWAYS. We have to take time from our busy lives and make sure that our leaders are doing what we elected them to do. We need to do this before it becomes too late and we have a situation like GWB. Where we tried to right the ship after half of it has already sunk.
Carol
Obama is now no different than the Hillary we rejected during the primaries.
His vote to gut the 4th Amendment opened my eyes to what I could not see before over the oratory: that Professor Barack , though scholared in the Constitution, has no true loyalty nor affection for it.
Faced with the choice of one that surrendered to both political and patriotic pressures and stood up for the Constitution__and the other that arrogantly flipped off our pleas__I will write in Clinton's name in November.
Under whatever free speech rights that remain, I'll flip off Barack with a strategically raised middle finger.
Oh please, to gut the 4th Amendment?!? You realize warrant-less wiretapping has been going on for decades right? You realize even if Bush had never engaged in the NSA wiretapping program, and this bill had never been written, that warrant-less wiretapping would've STILL been legal in cases? FISA had built in means to wiretap without a warrant, this just extends the surveillance period to 7 days before a warrant must be obtained, so really, bloggers need to get a grip with this. I may not agree with it, but I'm not going to pretend that this is some god-awful vote that grants some new found powers that gut the 4th amendment. It just doesn't.
On the one hand you say that warrantless wiretapping has been going on for years and a few sentences later you qualify that statement by saying that a warrant was necessary within seven days. Quite the hairsplitter, aren't you? I think the point is that probable cause USED to be an issue; now, thanks to yet another Democratic capitulation, that is no longer necessary.
See Frank Dwyer's Profile
Fool me once...you can't fool me again.
Obama had the most extraordinary opportunity to be a transformative politician, but after his charisma and eloquence trumped the progressives in the race (Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, Biden), he cast his vote against the Constitution, validating a major element in what has been Bush's truly transformative politics: to move this democracy to a unitary executive, a Potemkin legislature, corporatism, fascism.
How can anyone who cares about the Constitution, progressive ideas, or the restoration of the democracy still vote for Rubber Stamp Obama? Yes, he's the lesser of two evils, but he's not "lesser" enough any more for me.
Perhaps we can't get sober again until we hit the gutter. I thought we'd done that in the first Bush/Cheney term, but perhaps it will take the utter and appalling catastrophe of a McCain presidency to put us there. Meanwhile, let's have a vital, honorable, passionate, honest Progressive Party to force the others toward decent, reform legislation that the people want (universal health care, for example), and let's not vote for any more Unitary Republicans or Vichy Democrats. (Which, really, are worse?) We can still work for Progressive Democrats, but we'll never be healthy again until we stop participating in this "centrist" betrayal. Obama could have done a lot of rightward pandering and still kept my vote, but not this one. I can't vote against the Constitution.
Yes, we haven't hit bottom yet. The FISA debacle has proved just how easily the netroots can be ignored. "The Uprising" has to go another level to hold Corporate Dems accountable.
"I can't vote against the Constitution" and anyone who can, cannot, by definition be a transformative figure. After all what is David asking here - what does transformative me? To change from one thing to another? Unlike Bush and his cronies to stand up for the rule of law and the constitution? That would be transformative.
But Obama squandered his opportunity on FISA and voted like all the other republicans and republicans in democrat's clothing and his vote speaks louder than his lofty speeches.
If words were all it took to change the world, then Obama would be a transformative figure bar none. Alas, his actions speak loud and clear and he stood with the republicans and their enablers.
I meant Margo Channing. No more gratuitous "All About Eve" references.
I would have to go with option B. While anything compared to the Bush Administration's extremism could potentially be considered transformative, there is very little in Obama's actions which would tend to argue that he is any different from a run of the mill DLC political operative.
He seemed very uncomfortable arguing with Edwards' positions, choosing rather to co-opt them. But, once the more Progressive elements were out of contention he ran home to momma (so to speak) and did what Dems always do; talk a good game and cave to reactionary elements. More a traditionalist than transformational, in my view.
Obama couldn't be much more uncomfortable with Edwards' position than Edwards himself--who believed in them so much he never actually voted for any of them when he had the chance.
As Russ Feingold said "He's running on MY record, not his own!"
Russ Feingold, now there's a transformative figure - except he doesn't have enough power to actually transform anything. And maybe that's the point, Obama is potentially transformative because he has the wherewithal to become the next potus. But if Obama votes for legislation that eviscerates the fourth amendment and/or shields a criminal administration, then certainly he is not a transformative figure no matter how much power he amasses. Then he is just more of the same.
I had those thoughts myself at the time, but what mitigated against that impression was the very unpopularity of his views amongst the establishment, how little money he had vs. how easy it would have been for him to gain mainstream support by norming his viewpoint, the fact that the media (and the Democratic Party, itself) ignored him and the very real possibility that he was learning from hindsight. Running against the establishment with little money and Nader's support goes a long way for me when looking at someone's motivations.
BTW, have you ever seen such a tepid endorsement as that of Edwards for Obama? At least he is consistent; far cry from a constitutional law professor who explicitly stated before the end of the Primaries that he would filibuster any bill with an immunity provision.
I do wish that Feingold had run. Prior to the Primaries, when he was considering a run, he had my vote over everyone else, hands down.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
