Was Obama Wrong to Veer Right?

Progressive Democrats like myself are already watching in some dismay as Barack Obama moves toward the center. The Supreme Court decisions on the death penalty and gun control have pushed the candidate into public statements on hot-button issues with which we fundamentally disagree. Here's Obama on the death penalty:

I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.

I am opposed to the death penalty in any circumstances, even the most despicable of crimes. I share the Buddhist view that the taking of any life is to be avoided. Even so, it has been proven time and again that our justice system can make mistakes, that people can be wrongly convicted -- either through honest jury error or by dishonest prosecutorial conduct; and that it is inherently racist and demonstrably influenced by class standing and wealth. The death penalty, once carried out, is irreversible, and it is known that numbers of innocent people have been judicially put to death. It's my personal belief that the death penalty is a toxin in the lifeblood of our society, and we are indisputably in extremely nasty company in the community of nations in insisting on maintaining this barbaric ritual. In the eyes of much of the world, the death penalty calls into question the state of our civilization. I am absolutely firm in my conviction that it is wrong.

Here's Obama on gun control:

I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

I couldn't disagree more. I think the Supreme Court decision on the "right to bear arms" is an invitation to the NRA and its associates to open the flood gates on litigation to force other major cities to abandon the sanity of those few existing laws that protect our communities from the menace of guns. I believe that guns are out of control in this country, as witness the unending acts of violence on city streets as well as in our schools and workplaces. There is seemingly no reliable way to prevent maniacs and criminals from easy access to powerful weapons, capable of wreaking havoc on a large scale and dealing out indiscriminate death to innocents. As with the death penalty, America's image in the world is deeply impaired by this addiction to the gun. There has to be some middle way on which sensible people can agree, in order to stem the violence.

And yet, and yet, my liberal and progressive friends, my brothers and sisters in the battle for justice and sanity and basic humanity... let's not throw out our newest baby with the bathwater. Not this time. Let's not throw up our hands in shock and horror when he says something politically contingent. Let's acknowledge, bitter though it may be, the galling truth that not everyone in this country shares our convictions; that there are vast numbers of Americans -- a majority, indeed -- who do not share our views and who would not cast a vote for anyone, man or woman, who did not make public avowals like those Obama makes, above. The changes we seek in our society will come about only in part through leadership -- though that is certainly important. They will come about only through the will of the majority of people, and there we must work, each as best he can, to change hearts and minds.

Of course we need to voice our differences. We will not be silenced. But as we speak, let's be clear about the picture that is bigger, by far, than any one of our disagreements. Let's voice them with clarity and conviction, but not with the kind of bitterness, disappointment, divisiveness and anger that give heart to those whose world-view has held dominion over this country for the past few decades. Let's be mindful of the goal and listen to the whole man, Obama, not to those things he is compelled to say, if only to avoid defeat. Let's try to listen to the heart even as we tolerate the strategist. Let's, this time, be real enough to win. Once that's done, then the work begins.

Comments

[djkrlsn]

I have no problem with the death penalty being taken off the table for everyone if there is a willingness to keep rapists and murders in prison for life. I am sorry, but people like Jeffery Dahmer and CHarles Manson belong in prison and should be kept off the street. Also, since when the Bill of Rights was written the militia and the people were and are the same group, the meaning of "the right of the people to...shall not be infringed" is obvious. The choice to defend your life and the lives of your family is truly yours to make, just as the choice on whether or not to defend my life and the live of my friends and family from criminal attack is my ethical decision to make (BTW., I made the choice to defend innocent life long ago)

[fightorleave2]

Yes, Obama was wrong to veer to the right. He is wrong on FISA. He is wrong on execution of child-rapists, and he is wrong to foster any Bush policy. All of Bush's policies should be immediately rescinded and nullified to the extent possible and, if necessary, legislation should be passed to go after all those who helped or supported Bush's crimes, then the ranks should be purged (yes, I used the word purge; I did not say cleanse) and many prosecuted with, possibly most importantly, heavy monetary fines (like in the billions, for some). I hope Obama recognizes that if he endorses and carries out these 3 things, he will have 60-70% of the American people behind him. As far as wall street goes, I say take the money, but he shouldn't give anything back. If he does, then the people will finally revolt. They will have seen, and had, enough.

[PeterAtLarge]

60-70 percent? I don't believe so. I agree with everything you say, except for your conclusion. It doesn't help to butt your head against reality.

[soulstressed]

Also ... we have to trust him a bit more. He and his campaign have proven surprisingly brilliant strategists over the past year. We can of course grumble a little bit when we disagree, as within any good relationship, let him know we're watching. But let's not lambaste the man publicly.

[soulstressed]

Thanks Peter for making an adult statement about Obama's 'veering'. It's always been obvious to me even during the primaries that he'd have to move right if we're going to win.
This is politics people, not pinochle!

[ProudLiberalDan]

It just proves what I was saying during the primaries. All the true progressives were shunted aside so we could have a contest between two DLC at heart candidates to see which one got to make token history.

The ones cheering the loudest now are the corporations who run this country.

They know now that Obama only represents the style of change, not the substance of change.

And this election is closer in content to 1992 than 1932. Both elections had charismatic nominees. However, any of us who were hoping for an election would change the direction of the country are seeing how we will be disappointed.

Ronald Reagan didn't run to the center. He boldly went out and sold conservative values to an electorate that was at first suspicious of them. When he was elected, he didn't just have a personal victory, he had a mandate (to go in a terrible direction.) It's too bad Obama won't do the same thing for progressive values.

I had such high hopes prior to this election.

Obama won't get us out of Iraq. He won't pursue universal health care.

He will campaign well and may even win in a landslide. Whoopee...

At best, all we will be able to hope for now is a couple of decent Supreme Court appointments, which is still better than what we'll get out of John McCain. But it is a far cry from what this election could have been about..

[PeterAtLarge]

Sorry, Dan. I'll bet I'm as proud a liberal as you are, but I'm a realist too. If Obama did "the same things for progressive values" as Reagan did for conservative, he'd be overwhelmingly defeated in a national election. Reagan could get away with it in part because he was able to fool some of the people some of the time, but also because the country as a whole is already profoundly conservative and therefore prone to agree with him. But NOT profoundly liberal. I wish it were otherwise.

[Tubby]

Peter, you're wearing blinkers and are bound to be disappointed in Obama. You and your progressives are a small fraction of the electorate that Obama wants to win and represent.

[PeterAtLarge]

You mistake me, I think. My point was, essentially, that I have no illusions as to what Obama can achieve. I was asking others to come to the same realization. Thanks, though, for the response.

[jvarga]

So we still haven't established, is he veering to the right or have uninformed supporters finally found out about some of his views that he's "always" had?

[tompoe]

"AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."

Telco immunity, if not a line in the sand, I don't know what is.

Our country needs change. Obama votes to give telcos immunity, and he joins the rest of the pack that deserves nothing less than recall, or impeachment (as appropriate) immediately. Our country needs change. Isn't it ironic, we're looking for a change that creates Democracy? Is Obama going to honor that commitment, or not?

[PeterAtLarge]

But, as I see it, lines in the sand are not especially helpful.

[NorVaGal]

When, tompoe, did Obama vote to give telcos immunity? First of all, the Senate hasn't voted yet. Second, last week when the House voted, Obama issued a STATEMENT saying that he supports government surveillance within the legal boundaries, but he specifically DOES NOT support retroactive immunity for telcoms. Third, NO candidate will or can support every single issue that each of us individuals holds sacred. Fourth, Presidents have to govern from the center in order to represent the vast majority of Americans, who are consistently moderate and not idealogically far left or far right. Would I love an ultra, super-leftwing president? You betcha! But, I know that's not gonna happen. And, I'd probably be critical of Obama if he went that route. It would be no different from what we liberals suffered under the neocon, right-wingnuts of the last 8 years. And, post 9-11, Americans are increasingly more willing to sacrifice some privacy in order for the government to be unhampered in security surveillance. So, compromise legislation is probably a fact of life from here on out. Hopefully, the compromises will always include provisions to prosecute leaders and companies who hold themselves above whatever the current laws may be. If we're lucky, we progressives will be able to persuade larger numbers of voters to see things our way, elect more like-thinking office holders and judges, and gain large enough majorities in Congress to make presidents such as Obama able to get veto-proof progressive legislation enacted.

[Parducci]

If he is veering to the right, is it because he is changing his views, or is it because he is saying things that he doesn't believe? The first is not a bad thing, despite the penchant of political types to label this as "flip flop." The second is tantamount to lying.

[hopeless277]

It just shows that the GOP still runs the Democratic party. The false notion that to win president, you have to be a 'tough guy' and embrace Republican positions is created by Republicans themselves and then sold to the public through Scar, Hannity, Matthews, Hume, Kristol and the rest of the GOP media machine. It's ADVERTIZING. It's MARKETING. Obama will lose my support if he supports the deletion of the 4th amendment through FISA. End of story.

[PeterAtLarge]

This is precisely what I was trying to say. How sad, that you'll withdraw your support if he doesn't act according to your wishes on just one particular point. What we need now is the bigger view.

[Russycle]

I have to agree(yet again) with Hopeless. You may consider the Bill of Rights "just one particular point", but in my opinion it's the whole enchilada. Without it there's nothing to keep the US from spiraling into fascist totalitarianism. And if Obama is OK with that, then I'm done with him.

[PixelMarx]

50% of this country isn't active in politics. And yet the president is president for that 50% as well. Then there's the fact that of the 50% active in politics by voting, a slim majority is usually behind the candidate in office. Which means 25% of the country, at any given time, are behind dictating the direction the rest take. However, the president has a responsibility to be a leader for 100% of the country. He or she cannot take hard idealistic positions and expect to get into office. And so candidates move to the center in an election. Big surprise. What surprised me more is the Nader progressives that want to actually give McCain a chance at the office by whining about issues that Obama has no control over at this point.

[NorVaGal]

Well said, Pixel. I agree whole-heartedly.

[SpoxLogic]

No, he wasn't wrong to veer right towards the center. Why?
1. During the Dem Primary, about 35-40 million Dems voted.
2. In 2004, about 102-105 Million folks voted.
3. Not all Dems are as far left leaning as some of the posters here.
4. The Independents and on-the-fence Republicans are not as far leaning some of the posters here.

Conclusion: Obama needs to come center in order to win the election. It's all nice and good that most of the posters here are excited about Obama, but unless he wins over a good chunk of the Independents, et al, he will lose.

And we surely cannot afford that.

[PeterAtLarge]

I agree. He's not wrong on this. Just smart.

[jvarga]

Unless these are new opinions of his, then how is this a veer to the right? I thought I saw someone quote from one of his books about him supporting the death penalty for a few things. His quote that you give certainly doesn't sound like a de novo opinion, but one he's held for a while. I know for a fact that I heard him say in many town hall meetings that he supported the second amendment. Again, this isn't a veer. It has been his established position. If people supported him without knowing his position on issues then that's not his fault, it's theirs.

Neither of those positions change the fact that he is still the only non-warmonger in the race, the only one who supports equal rights for women, and the only one who wants to engage in some sort of health care reform.

[cktirumalai]

Political experience dies hard. It has been said that Democrats run to the left in the primaries and toward the center in the general election, and Republicans to the right in the primaries and return to the center later. And all weigh whether going down to defeat with your inner convictions intact is better or worse than gaining power though accommodation and adjustment in order to implement at least part of your program.

[Johnnn]

That's it in a paragraph. It always happens this way so no one should be surprised.

[NorVaGal]

So true. Conservative purists are unhappy with McCain and progressive purists are disillusioned with Obama. However, no matter WHO the party nominees had ended up being, we would still be having this exact same discussion.