The "Open Letter" to Barack Obama in the Nation (posted on the magazine's web site on July 28, 2008) chides him for retreating from his core liberal beliefs and steering toward the center. I think the letter misjudges where Obama really stands in the political spectrum, a miscalculation that can lead to unwarranted disillusionment and damaging backbiting among progressives down the line.
Both the left and the right slam Obama for flipping toward the middle. That kind of brotherly accord across political lines should raise suspicions. The accord is rooted in confusion, for the reality is that Obama doesn't fit the mold of a full-throated liberal that both sides perceive.
Back when Obama was starting out as a community organizer in Chicago, he parted company with organizing guru Saul Alinsky. Alinsky held that self-interest is the watchword for grassroots activism and his oft-repeated organizing slogan was, "rub raw the sores of discontent." Obama threw overboard Alinsky's confrontation tactics, like releasing ghetto rats on the city hall lawn to dramatize neglect in public housing. Obama figured he might need cooperation from public officials on other issues down the line. His preference was to bring people together to come to an agreement rather than have them slug it out until one side or the other won.
Pros among organizers call this a "process" approach, where the way things get done, and how that builds collaboration across divisions--in other words, promotes common interests and broad participation--is as important as the substantive results. You don't get all you want this way, you compromise, but you also build a stronger community and create mechanisms for constructive problem-solving on an ongoing basis.
Obama has said his early organizing experiences had a huge impact on him, and there is no doubt he has carried these formative ideas forward into his political career. A distinct and compelling component of Obama's run is his commitment to change the political culture. This is separate from his specific policy objectives and an add-on benefit, should he win. No one else has shown the same passion for breaking the abrasive partisanship and legislative gridlock that has crippled our political process for some three decades.
Obama wants a political regime marked by comity and rationality. He alone has sounded a steady drumbeat in favor of breaking the hold of lobbyists and big-money power holders, shaping more transparent decision-making, and opening up channels for grassroots groups and ordinary citizens to have their voices heard. He's demonstrated his dedication to the grassroots concept by building a support system of over a million adherents and fueled his campaign financially through an avalanche of small contributions.
It's obvious that a leader can't be for civil discourse and collaboration and still be a fierce advocate for a set political position, especially one that's viewed as extreme by many, rightly or wrongly. If Obama wants to overhaul our backbiting partisan system, that means he's got to be moderate on some policy issues. He couldn't possibly repair our prevailing stalemate without using flexibility and accommodation.
Obama says that he is willing to make some concessions on offshore oil drilling if that will result in a broader bipartisan policy on the energy issue. The same with FISA. Obama voted against the original Protect America Act, but supported a new version that assures oversight by the FISA court, while at the same time, giving retroactive immunity to telecom companies that unlawfully wiretapped American citizens. Civil liberty activists, and many Obamaniks, object strongly to this concession to the culpable corporations. On his web site, Obama gave this response to a large group of supporters who were very vocal in their disagreement:
Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
This shows his predisposition to seek a compromise, to be pragmatic, and at the same time pay attention to those with opposing views. Obama says he will have his Attorney General scrutinize surveillance procedures and propose necessary alterations. I believe he will do that diligently.
On gun control, I likewise see a fine-tuned stance. Obama didn't join the liberal camp's outcry against the Supreme Court's put-down of D.C.'s blanket ban on firearms. Obama supports the public's right to possess firearms, but also declares that the right is not absolute, maintaining that there's "the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures."
I personally wish Obama had taken a more progressive position on these issues and also on faith-based initiatives and the death penalty for child rapists. But he has said throughout his campaign, openly, that he wants to encourage bi-partisan solutions and he has planted his feet in the center- to-moderately-liberal space along the political spectrum. He's no flaming radical.
Because of his forceful anti-war stand and stirring oratory, people perceive Obama to be more robustly liberal than he actually is. For sure, he favors the general Democratic Party policy agenda. He can be counted on to confront the unfair tax system, environmental ills, and social and economic injustice. But within that context, he has been centrist in opposing gay marriage, favoring the death penalty, and supporting the right to possess firearms. He advocates a health care plan with less than strict universal coverage and puts a premium on the African American community committing to self-improvement.
With this centrist record plainly a part of his resume, Obama is hardly the flip-flop artist his accusers proclaim him to be, opportunistically shifting to the middle to garner votes. Those making the accusations are off-base on who he is politically.
Being an Obama supporter who leans politically to his left, I rest easy, nonetheless, for two reasons (besides his being an obvious improvement over Bush/McCain). Both reasons loop back to his roots as a community organizer.
First, grassroots activists in the social movement he has organized will be an engine of mass pressure, partnering with Obama in pushing for important policies and programs he favors and which Congress resists. At the same time, grassroots allies can be critics and prods, putting pressure directly on Obama when his policies are lame or if he strays too far from positions to which he has committed himself. We saw signs of that with the FISA issue.
Second, I appreciate Obama's zeal to bring accord to a divisive political culture that has emasculated this country's ability to govern itself, immobilizing both parties and disadvantaging all citizens. I believe Obama puts a greater premium on creating a political culture that can solve problems in a civil fashion than do most of his progressive supporters.
In the Open Letter, the signers list ten change areas they deem are essential. Nine of them are concrete policy areas like healthcare, the environment, and education. Only one, and it is the last one listed, deals with reform of the political process. This, I believe, represents a different balance between policy reform and reform of the political system than Obama envisions.
Obama, the organizer, is willing to give on certain concrete policy matters to forge a political decision-making community that works to further the common good and improves the climate of discourse and association among parties and citizens. In essence, this doesn't reflect a shift to the center or a weakening of a liberal disposition. It's a different conception of what's needed to better the country. And it's a change Obama believes in. Those who support Obama ought to acknowledge his powerful commitment to transforming the political culture and would do well to give him leeway to work in that direction.