Understanding Obama's Recent Right Turn
OK, we all knew, deep down, that our wondrous golden boy of change would one day reveal his feet of clay. What most of us did not anticipate was just how easily they would fit into jackboots.
There has emerged a conventional wisdom among progressives that is not entirely wrong about why Obama has so readily embraced police state surveillance, and why he felt compelled to express his solidarity with Scalia, et al, on the death penalty. As the thinking goes, these moves are simply the expectable, if disheartening, political positioning typical of Democratic presidential candidates, once they enter the general election campaign.
He surely did not want to rebut Republican ads like this:
Low, rumbling, ominous music gradually increases in volume as a solemn voice that oozes manly gravitas announces, "Barack Obama voted against a bill to that would help our intelligence agencies detect terrorist plots against our nation before they can be carried out. Why does he want to protect the privacy of Al-Qaeda's phone calls more than he wants to protect Americans from Al-Qaeda? [Cut to an image of a World Trade Tower falling.] Barack Obama doesn't want the death penalty applied to criminals who sexually assault and brutalize little children. Why does he care more about child rapists [cut to image of a swarthy unshaven convict doing the perp walk] than he does about their victims? [Cut to an image of doe-eyed little blond girl with tears rolling down her apple cheeks, as she lies in an oversized hospital bed holding tightly to her teddy bear.] Barack Obama and his friends at the ACLU care about terrorists and rapists. Vote for John McCain. He cares about us." [As reassuring music swells, cut to an image of a younger looking, photo-shopped McCain in his crisp Naval officer's uniform. One arm is around a child, the other rising in a determined salute to the flag.]
It is certainly reasonable for Democratic candidates to fear they might face attack ads such as this, and we might have seen something like this one air had Obama opposed the new FISA bill. Facing the possibility of this kind of right wing assault, it is not surprising to see so many erstwhile liberal politicians preemptively surrender their principles. That Obama, too, would adopt this strategy has been particularly demoralizing for his progressive supporters. After all, he has a mostly excellent and morally consistent voting record. But more importantly, he has very vocally eschewed the Machiavellian political calculations that we have come to expect from other members of his party. To see Barack Obama behave like any other invertebrate Democrat is an especially painful blow.
However, this conventional wisdom on his political cowardice doesn't plumb the problem deeply enough. Obama's resort to the triangulation of the old politics is an admission of a much more serious limitation. It tells us that he does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes a progressive stance the one that is obviously the most moral. It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling.
His limited ability to exercise moral leadership leaves him with no choice other than to accept Republican frames on issues. So, on the FISA bill, for example, loss of privacy and immunity for criminal telecom companies become a trivial price to pay for protection from unfathomable and pervasive Evil.
But this raises the question of what a progressive reframe on an issue like this might look like. Here is one idea. But I'd love for commenters to offer theirs. Someone from Obama's staff is probably monitoring the Huffington Post in order to take the temperature of the progressive blogosphere, which has grown increasingly feverish over the Democratic candidate's recent unprincipled retreats. If they are reading this, perhaps together we may be able to revivify the Obama campaign's moribund moral imagination.
The 30-second ad opens on a scene in a middle class suburban kitchen. A mother is speaking on the phone. Her voice is muffled and is drowned out by an intermittent electronic beep, along with the sounds of someone frenetically striking a computer keyboard. The screen quickly splits in half to reveal the woman's nine-year-old daughter speaking by cell phone to inform her mother that she is ready to be picked up from the school bus stop. The screen is then split in thirds to reveal a man wearing headphones sitting in front of a computer typing notes, obviously monitoring the mother-daughter conversation. Behind him is a massive warehouse filled with computers and scurrying NSA technicians. This image then takes up the entire screen. The voiceover says, "Republicans, like George Bush and John McCain, have taken away our freedoms, invaded our private lives, and made us less safe." We then quickly see a succession of images -- a scene from Iraq that features a burning American tank, a scene of grenade launchers being placed into a packing crate, a scene of an unguarded American port where uninspected shipping containers are being off loaded, and finally a scene of a car with blacked out windows slowing down in front of an unsecured nuclear power plant. A window rolls down. A hand holding a camera reaches out to snap photos. Then the car speeds away. The voice over then concludes, "Protecting America means preserving our rights [cut to an image of the Constitution in which the camera scrolls down the Bill of Rights section], along with defeating terrorists." The last image is a scene of Barack Obama standing up and pointing toward a large map of some unidentifiable part of the world. Below him is a large conference table of twenty or so advisors who are listening with rapt attention.
In spite of his limitations, there is too much at stake to not work hard to make sure Barack Obama moves into the White House. And, once there, we must hold his clay feet to the fire.
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
I am reading comments on these posts and seeing "Obama is all we have..."
Obama is ALL WE HAVE??? What is wrong with everyone? You decided you wanted him because you thought you knew WHO he was and WHAT he believed, and that you could trust him! I still do! Would any one of you like to step up and take over for him now? Did it ever occur to anyone that seeing as how he is most likely to be the next President, he may know something about national security issues that would compromise that security if the information were just flying around the internet (internationally)? If Obama knows it was necessary to support FISA at this time, then it IS! We have faced a lot more terrifying situations than Barack's having to support something that is basically not his character or beliefs under normal circumstances. But folks! Things haven't been "normal" since 911. Try to remember, "Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures". At this point in time, it doesn't appear we can ever go back to a pre-911 world. It is our HOPE to work in a similar direction of national comfort and ease. But things will be different now; and things will get BETTER! We have to have faith in that belief, or continue the Bush strategy. Is that what you want, to stay where we are? YES WE CAN!
To sell out our principals, the bill of rights and our morality because "Things haven't been "normal" since 911" means we do "continue the Bush strategy." You just don't get it do you?
As opposed to who exactly? Hillary, who is at LEAST as triangulating and manipulative and who has the added baggage of Bill wandering around like an unguided missile? She wouldn't even repudiate the war, let alone promise to end it.
The only Democrats who WEREN'T triangulating moderates were Dennis Kuchinich and Chris Dodd. Neither had a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected.
People always place too much emphasis on the candidates and not enough on the people. We need to be a forceful and aggressive lobbying group to make the politicians do what we want.
Unless there is some powerful lobby FOR something it never gets done. Good arguments are hopelessly weak against the "power of the dark-side" of lobbyist cash -- as we saw on FISA.
The telecoms distributed millions of dollars to bribe the House and Senate and it paid off.
It's funny how some like to label me a "conservative water carrier" and other such silly labels..
One must wonder how they can reconcile my stated and consistent support for Obama with their ridiculous and childish accusation
The simple fact that they must attack the messenger simply indicates they cannot counter the message.
Michale...
@3Gs
>I help develope dielectric etch machines that
>create the chips in those Govt computers,
>and a member of my family helped develope
>the voice recognition software that the Govt
>uses to find that minnow.
Than you understand more than most the difficulty of the process..
>Makes me sick to think how he and I are
>wasting our energy supporting the man.
>12 years of military service pushed me
>into this career, and it is so hard to escape.
I would think you would be proud. Your efforts have undoubtedly saved hundreds, if not thousands of innocent lives...
>I believe Obama is feeling the same pull to
>maintain his terrorist credentials until the
>time is right to gut the system Bush created.
>That's what I think.
I respect that. But, it's also possible that Obama is learning first hand the seriousness of the threat we face and THAT is why he is acting the way he is..
Considering the man's character, my explanation is a lot more logical than yours.
Michale...
@IAmRightIsLeft
>They still call musical releases albums
>even though they have not made an
>album in 20 years. Wire taps is a generic,
>not technical term. Yet another attempt at
>misdirection by you.
My point was it illustrates the naivete of the posters because it makes the process seem so much simpler than it really is.
To whit, the prevailing argument is that it should be easy for the government to listen in on the terrorists calls only and leave innocent Americans alone.
Now, despite your tendency to get pithy, you strike me as a reasonable person..
I ask you. Is the prevailing argument a rational one, given the state of the world wide technology?
Michale...
@IAmLeftIsRight
>Try asking the correct question. There is nothing
>unconstitutional about retroactive immunity.
Really??? I would have thought EX POST FACTO would have prevented retroactive immunity.
>The 4th Amendment protects against
>warrant less searches.
And these new FISA measures state nothing about warrantless searches against US Citizens
>Ergo, when the government, including
>the office of the president instructs that
>warrant less searches be conducted,
>it is by definition both illegal & unconstitutional.
And these new FISA measures have nothing to do with warrantless searches.
So, I ask again. Where is the Constitutional violations??
>Were you truly a cop or were you a magician
>accustomed to performing tricks by getting
>your audience to look at your left hand while
>your right hand performs the illusion?
No need to be insulting. Don't get pithy with me, just because your argument doesn't hold up.
Michale...
@IAmLeftIsRight
CONT
But hay.. I am a reasonable person. I concede that I might be wrong.. I concede that Obama and all the Democrats supporting the new FISA measures MIGHT be wrong. It's a possibility that simply cannot be ignored...
Can you do the same?
Can YOU concede that YOU might be wrong and that A> these new Measures do NOT violate the US Constitution and B> these new measures are necessary for the safety and security of this country.
Can you concede the possibility???
Because, if you can't, that's not a stand on principle. That's a stand on ego..
Michale...
>You are purportedly a cop, a facility security
>officer & counter terrorist officer.
That would be FEDERAL Security Officer and all of the afore should be prefixed with "former". But, proceed...
As to the rest, I have read the measures.. I cannot see where there is a Constitutional violation.
But, as you say, I am not an attorney. I COULD be wrong. I readily admit that..
However, I have 3 things on my side of the argument.
1. Obama IS a Constitutional Law scholar. And he is comfortable that there are no Constitutional violations.
2. The majority of Democrats in the House & Senate are mostly lawyers. ALL are familiar with the government and (one would hope) the US Constitution. THEY are all comfortable that there are no Constitutional violations.
3. Not one SINGLE person who has decried about these alleged Constitutional violations have been able to point to them. NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON.
Given all that, plus my own reading of the measure, I am comfortable in my position that these new FISA measures have ZERO Constitutional Conflicts.
CONT
@IAmLeftIsRight
In 1978 FISA was enacted to limit
>presidential spying. In 2008 it is
>being ignored by the president &
>will be used to spy on 300M Americans.
>Slight difference.
Oh wow.. You can see the future! Kewl..
Can you give me next saturday's Power Ball numbers??
Or, better yet, tell me who is going to be the OTHER team in the Super Bowl facing the Jacksonville Jaguars?? :D I already know who is going to win...
Michale...
@MrMike513
>Any eavesdropping by the government
>on the private conversations of US citizens
>without a probable cause hearing is a
>violation of the 4th amendment. Try reading
>the constitution.
OK... Done.. I have read the Constitution.
Now, you read the new FISA measures and tell me where the Constitutional violation is.
It should be real easy. Everything is separated into sections and sub-sections. Just point out the sections and/or sub-sections that violate the US Constitution.
I'll be standing bi...
Michale...
Perhaps the problem is that we have framed 'America' and 'American values' in such a skewed, unrealistic way for so long, that it is now impossible for anyone who wants to be our leader to tell the truth. America is and has always been many things: many good, and many downright evil. But from Columbus to the present we have framed ourselves in a mythic way that is antithetical to actually becoming the country and society we tell ourselves we are.
I was listening to Jeffrey Toobin on the Supreme Court's decisions today, and he made the point that Obama has, at least since his book "The Audacity of Hope" been in favour of the death penalty when it is applied even-handedly, even in certain rape cases. I disagree with Obama's position on this whole-heartedly, but that doesn't mean that he has changed his mind, just that this court case has brought one of his positions which is not in line with progressive dogma to the fore. I think Obama is a far better choice than the alternative, but I don't think he is perfect.
It's a bad wind that never changes. I trust Obama to see the "BIG PICTURE" as he takes a position on matters affecting the security of the American people, even if that means modifying, compromising or changing a position if it's in the best interest of the country--not to do so solely for political reasons--which I do not believe he is guilty of. Also, he understands that you cannot legislate morality. A lot of folks listen to Obama's explanations of the position he takes on issues, but they do not HEAR what he says because they filte what he says with their own preconceived interpreta
Well kids, all bickering aside. Obama is all we have. All we do is complain. No candidate is going to be EXACTLY who you want them to be or do exactly what you want them to do. Politics is as much strategy as it is ideals. Obama is running to be President of the American people, not just progressives. Don't support Obama or vote for McCain to spite the party if that will make you happy. But shut the eff up when McCain is in the White House. Think of how much you'll be complaining then. Pathetic.
"Obama is all we have".
Yeah, maybe you're right. Who cares what he stands for or believes in, who cares if he'll take the same position as McCain on warrantless wiretaps or lawbreaking, at least he isn't the other guy who wants warrantless wiretaps and lawlessness. And that makes all the difference in the world.
The Republicans aren't even bothering to pretend to respect his position, they are laughing at him and calling him weak for caving. There is a Republican betting pool on which position he'll surrender next.
But I should vote for him because he's all I've got.
Thanks, Hobson, but that horse doesn't look so good right now.
Part One - rwt1138: I understand it is difficult to find an easy way to justify Obama's recent twists; I have gone through a wide range of emotions in reacton to his seeming cave-ins. Still, I have come to the conclusion, like some of the wiser people commenting here, that it is extremely important right now to take a step back and look through a different lense, the "overview" lense. In this sense, I think I can trust that Obama, even as imperfect as he (or any of us) is, may very well know a whole lot more than he is able to talk freely about, or even has the time to get deeply into at this point. I think he has given a lot more thought to many, many concerns than a lot of people give him credit for or can yet imagine.
I guess it all boils down to trust; not a blind faith that knows nothing, but a kind of "tuning into" the original sense I had that Obama was someone different, that he was clean, his energy pure and bright. I sense this in him still - even more now, actually; I still feel in my gut that he has a level of commitment and understanding that far surpasses anyone to who has come along in a long, long time. And that is much more than saying that "he's all we've got."
See Part Two
Part Two - I do not get caught up in what the Republicans are doing or not doing - I've found that it is distracting and actually too stressful to fret over the small minds and evil ways of certain people. Yes, it is critically necessary for Obama's campaign to stay on top of the treachery threatening at every turn. But I choose not to give my energy to the darkness of the GOP kill machine. I feel my energy is better spent working for the light, in whatever capacities I may do my best works. I hope and pray that more and more Americans will adopt this philosophy and lend their imaginations and hearts to this kind of commitment. God knows, this country is overdue for some committed people working together for real healing change.
I ask that all people who feel moved by my comments look deeper inside for this level of trust, and visualize a new reality in government, in this nation that we love, and in the world, FOR all the world. Together we CAN make a change. I have to believe that. What are YOU willing to believe, how far can you stretch to begin to see things in a new, more hopeful light?
See Part Three
Part Three - My undying question is when? When do we decide that now is the time - the eternal NOW - to finally take responsibility for cleaning up the mess we've created and begin building anew? I feel this moment in our history is the time - it seems apparent to many people - and it also feels like Barack Obama is a messenger of this understanding. I believe this - and I believe in him.
Presidente Obama 2009 - Viva Obama!
"Most" moral?!
I think most people view morality as an either/or decision -- either something is moral or it isn't. Discussions of "most" moral are for those who enjoy debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
Y'all keep taking about 9/11 like its a magic date in the history of Bush's spying program. Its as if 9/11 justifies ALL Constitutional abuses. The program where Bush spied on Senators, High School Students, Nuns, Mommies, Little Kids, etc started LONG before 9/11. In fact it started almost immediately after Bush stole office.
That having been said please explain why spying on Americans was important BEFORE 9/11? Should the Telcoms be held accountable for what they did BEFORE 9/11?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
