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.

Comments

[worrierqueen]

It shows that either the American public are stupid or, perhaps more damningly, Obama and McCain, believe the American public are stupid. Based on who they voted for the last two elections, who can blame them?

[dirtystrat]

And tell me again why he government is listening in on a conversation between a mother and her school age daughter? A little to over the top for my taste.

[Michale32086]

Are you familiar with how the technology works??

Think of the communications as a large school of millions of minnows. Now, the authorities need to find one specific minnow in all those millions..

Due to the technology, the ONLY way to do it is to scoop up the entire school of minnows and then NIV the ones that are not needed..

That's the only way to do it..

It's the nature of the beast...

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. 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 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.

[Michale32086]

The simple fact that ya'all still refer to it as "wire tapping" shows that you are not really cognizant of the technology...

And it also shows why FISA needs to be augmented and updated...

You are advocating a fight with a 2008 enemy using 1978 tactics and you wonder why you are being told it just won't work...

Michale.....

[Tulka2]

I hear you. Too bad Huffington Post is so full of old fart progressives (like me). We need an article here explaning what you imply. Would you write one...? Or direct Huff Post to a good one on-line...?

[Michale32086]

"I hear you. Too bad Huffington Post is so full of old fart progressives (like me)."

Or fat bald old fart independents like me. :D

I'll mull over writing one.. :D

Michale.....

[jeffbridges]

How's this for a reframe on government wiretaps?

"America is only as strong as the liberties we protect. In the face of overwhelming evil, we choose to remain true to the principles that have guided us through the last 200 years, and that will continue to shine as a beacon of light to the rest of the world. We remain confident that no enemy, foreign or domestic, will ever have the power to bring down this great nation so long as we stay true to our rights, our ideals, and the American way of life."

[sxm342]

Even before he wrapped up the nomination, Obama was changing his campaign. He's played the game and been no different than the Clintons and other old school politicians. It was the belief that Obama was a different kind of politician that set him apart. Now his supporters may still feel that way about him, but swing voters in both parties and independents aren't looking through rose coloured glasses. It is still Obama's election to loose but giving McCain and Repubs more ammunition isn't the best way to stave off a win. All the money in the world won't be able to buy an election. Obama will need to connect with the voters who are voting come election day.

[j0em0mma]

This (formerly) ardent supporter no longer feels Obama is a different kind of politician. I am really starting to regret contributing to him. A slightly altered Paul Simon Lyric blowing through:

"Welcome cynicism my old friend..."

[rationalthought1]

A while back Obama suggested people read Doris Kearns Goodwin's "Team Of Rivals" to understand how he was going to approach things. I heartily second that suggestion. The balance that Lincoln had to strike between the Radicals of his party (that's what they were actually called, who were for the abolition of slavery immediately) and the more conservative forces - not to mention the Democrats, who wanted to leave slavery as it was, was a very delicate balance, indeed. It was also one that if he had, instead, chosen to immediately force the change, before public opinion coud be brought around to that consensus, would have proven disasterous to his leadership and to the cause of the union ( and the future of the millions who were enslaved). Obama has demonstrated that he knows what he's doing. I will bank on his and his campaigns smarts and pragmitism which are necessary tools to attain his ideals.

[pdyoung]

Hi Sxm342
It is still Obama's election to win also. And I think you are looking through clouded glasses because the last time I looked, Obama was connecting quite nicely with people from all walks of life. Election day is going to be sweet for us Democratics this November. Go Obama 08'

[Terriac]

The simple truth is, Obama has to get elected before he can do anything. That's what he's trying to do. In a perfect world, he would not have to be as careful, but have we already forgotten how Dukakis and Kerry were both derailed by corrupt and unethical ploys of the far right? He simply can't play into their hands. Give him a chance. Let him get elected. Then let's see what happens. That's what really counts. Or do you want four more years of Bush a la McCain?

[j0em0mma]

what a load. It was precisely NOT caving to conventional wisdom that led him to defeat the most powerful couple in Democratic politics. What can he possibly hope to gain here? You don't mess with a spectacularly winning strategy unless there's something funky going on. My trust for Obama is at rock bottom... one micro-meter above my trust for Inside Beltway politicians...

[shep1900]

It's the logic of Richard Nixon, though--winning at all costs. I thought Senator Obama would be a terrible President from the very beginning--no real beliefs, no actual plans for _how_ everything will change, beyond a magic wand--and now, I am even more convinced.

As usual, the Democratic Party backed the wrong horse.

[CelticMajic]

Why can't a progressive get elected espousing progressive ideals and sticking too them.? Or are you saying that by doing that he is unelectable?

[3Gs]

Yup, that's the bottom line. Change is too scary, presents to many variables for their McDonalds cheese burger muddled brains, and implies way too much hard work. The masses can't handle life if they feel tomorrow will bring to many changes. See: Monk.

[mari2JJ]

I credit Obama that he is his own person doing what he deems best for the country. I am very proud of him that he has a mind of his own and that he is doing what he sees best for the country. Crab about him at your peril and we will have Bush 3 on our hands. Remember, supporting Obama does not intitle you to have thought control over him. So my advice, whine away and see how that works out for you with a Bush 3 admionistration.

[ProudLiberalDan]

The fact that his health care proposal was the weakest of all the Democrats who ran was a sign that despite his reputation of being the "most liberal member of the U.S. Senate", his instincts are more DLC than anyone dared fear.

The real Obama is showing himself. Granted, it may an electable Obama. However, this election unfortunately feels more like 1992, where a Democrat wins but doesn't change the direction of the country, as opposed to 1932, when the nation moved in a thirty year progressive direction.

[Cowboylove]

This simply is not true. Hillary Clinton's universal Health Care plan merely forced Americans to all buy private health insurance. That was no plan. It was a gift to insurance companies.

I cannot understand ANYONE in the Senate voting to give immunity to telecom companies, unless they feel they were forced by a corrupt administration to do their bidding or face serious penalties form a corrupt FCC and Justice Department. This issue has not been investigated enough - and Congress continues to protect this administration form impeachment. We can blame Nancy Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table. Democrats should have immediately begun impeachment hearings in January 2007.

Now we here Bush is planning an illegal attack on Iran before leaving office. Apparently he wants another shot at being "The War President". McCain supports an invasion. You may not love Obama, for God's sake, don;t trash the only guy we have in the fight!

[kevinw]

This is so understandable. You have explained this very clear. The FISA reversal is just like the Senate voting to give Bush authorization to use force. Sen Obama is acting just like Hilary. Interesting? I don't remeber you writing a similar article for her vote. It must have slipped your mind.

FISA was not a trivial bill. It legitimizes the illegal transgressions of the Bush administration and the Telcos. It also bars any civil action against the telcos. Bush will probably pardon the telco personnel involved in this transgression. And now Sen Obam and the Democratic leadership can stand up and say, like the little girl in the "shake and bake" commercials, "And I helped". Please tell me what is so important that we need to sacrifice the 4th Amendment for.

[Michale32086]

"Please tell me what is so important that we need to sacrifice the 4th Amendment for."

Please point out the sections that "sacrifice" the 4th Amendment??

Thanx

Michale.....

[racom]

conservative water carrier-

[shep1900]

....Please tell me what is so important that we need to sacrifice the 4th Amendment for.....

As nearly as I can tell, Senator Obama finds _himself_ considerably more important. Not the Party, not the country, just himself.

[Michale32086]

@RnR

>So, the possibility of being spied on
>by a foreign government is ok by you?

It's actually more of a concern to me than you could possibly know... But I am confused how we got away from our own government to a foreign one. Could you connect the dots for me??

>I'm sorry, but I feel that this (I'll use the word
>"administration" has caused the deaths of
>at least over 1 million innocent civilians in
>its quest for...whatever it is really after.

That's your opinion and I respect that, ill-informed and ignorant of the circumstances though it may be.

Although I hesitate to put it into this context, look at it this way.

When you were 6, did you question your parents in what they did. I mean SERIOUSLY question them to the point of emancipation?? I am guessing that you didn't...

Now, as you have gotten older and maybe have had kids of your own, have you come to realize how smart your parents were??

This is the same context.. Our government knows INFINITELY more about the circumstances than we do.. They were FREELY elected to make the decisions for us.

Look at the bright side. When you were a kid, you couldn't vote for new parents every 4 years. Now you can...

CONT

[Michale32086]

CONT

>I didn't have a "need to know" regarding the
>justifications for the illegal invasion/occupation
>of Iraq either - look how well that's going.

Yea, hindsight is 20/20.. What's your point?

Are you saying that, if the Bush Administration had checked with you first, everything would have been better???

Jeeeze... And they call ME arrogant.. :D

Michale.....

[mari2JJ]

Golly, I find nothing enlightening about those arguements that encourages more illegal behavior from this President. The Bush push for a Unitary Presidency has mucked our country for years to come. If you think that Bush was unable to sustain a request to eavesdrop under the loosest of regulation, even could have been 4 days later than the fact of the information having been received, then he has no ability to lead the Country whatsoever. Imagine, if , if Kerry had been elected and a Republican Congress was in power, what would the results be. Republicans would have screamed and screamed. This President has stretched the limits of Presidential Powers far beyond anything that has ever existed before, unless a legal declaration of WAR WAS DECLARED". So Bush needs to suck it up and live by the law. However, if Congress plays possum, end of discussion. Believe me, when a Democrat is next elected, and if the Democrats fail to win enough of a majority in the mid Term elections, expect no cooperation out of Republicans. Those are the facts. This mess occured when there ware Republican's in charge of the Presidency and the Congress. We must change that and elect a slew of Democrats so the mess can be fixed.

[MaureenSharkey]

I read Thomas Jefferson's biography, we all know he wrote the constitution.

He also said the constitution should be up for review, subeject to change, with every generation---which Jefferson figured to be every 19 years.

[ronmyers]

Months ago, Obama talked about reaching across the aisle and uniting the country, That and cutting out big corporations from the action are two of the changes he has long referred to. He is not a George McGovern or an Adlai Stevenson, men full of ideas that their times were not ready for. Another change he sees is a brake on the right wing juggernaught launched by Reagan and still rolling. To bring about this last change requires finesse and common sense. These are qualities he has and they are being put to good use. The history of progressive causes is one of martyrdom and defeat. Perhaps an Obama administration will provide a platform to change that over time.

[TheIndependenceParty]

For those of us who lived through Nixon/Agnew, and the looming impeachment of that president who saw no reason not to commit major and minor crimes against the other party and the people of this nation, FISA was a welcome restriction upon rampant domestic espionage by that administration, and the FBI under J Edgar Hoover. For those who say it was "cumbersome" and inneffective, ... I can only say that it worked fine until the boy king took office in 2001. A total of five warrants were denied out of thousands. Not enough, I guess to prevent Bush from requesting the surveillance, as reported, before 9/11. What did he know that we did not? He did not need surveillance, of course. The August 2001 NIE told him clearly that Bin Laden had already targeted us for attack. And so, ... he went on vacation.

A people deserve only the freedoms they demand of their government. If its leaders can not find the "ability to reframe certain key issues", such as the rights guaranteed under our Constitution and its Amendments, then perhaps We the People must do that once again for ourselves.

[Michale32086]

The times are very different than 1978 when FISA was created.. It's not the same world and it's not the same target...

I can't really say it any plainer than that.

You don't go hunting butterflies with an elephant gun. Consequently, you don't go hunting elephants with a butterfly net....

What part of this is so hard to understand??

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

A more apt analogy is you don't go hunting quail with a 30/30 and you don't go hunting deer with a 20-gauge loaded with bird shot.

Yea, you might get lucky and bring down a target once, but it is not the most effective way to hunt your game...

Michale......

[shep1900]

....What part of this is so hard to understand??....

Well, for those of us who choose not to live our lives being afraid of religious zealots who may want to attack us sometime, it's hard to understand why anyone could consider the sanctity of the Constitution a minor detail.

[racom]

OK folks, it comes down to this. There are many comments, by a few commenters, arguing that the FISA bill under consideration is not unconstitutional, as example:
"Could you please point out the sections that "shred the protections" of the US Constitution. I have read the measures frontwards and backwards and I cannot find anything that does what you claim. I HAVE found MANY sections that STRENGTHEN the protections of the 4th Amendment. I have even posted some of them".
The big point being made, we have to read the bill ourselves or we don't know what we are against.
I quit trying to understand legal documents when I read the legalese on my insurance policy. Yes I can read the words but it takes a 'Philadelphia lawyer' to understand it. So I hire the 'Philadelphia lawyer' and he works for me so I'm now OK.
On this issue, a large number of civil rights lawyers, legal professors and scholars along with the foremost civil liberty protection organization in the country have condemned this bill. For your edification go to this site for the language easy to understand.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35786prs20080626.html
So we have choices as to who we allow to influence or convince us. Numerous legal minds fighting for our civil rights or a self professed 'I read it so I know all there is to know about it' kitchen table legal wanna-be. Your choice!!!

[Michale32086]

"Numerous legal minds fighting for our civil rights "

No... Numerous legal minds with a political agenda and a STAKE in the fact that things be interpreted a certain way..

What political agenda am I serving??

I am just some grunt who happens to have a lot of expertise in the field of LEO, FSO and CTO...

And *I* can understand House Resolution 6304...

Are you saying that all these people with all their fancy edumacations can't understand plain english???

Michale....

[racom]

I just watched Olberman discuss this tonite, explaining how John Dean has studied the FISA bill for the last week as has the legal dept at ACLU in attempts to get a handle on the legal language of the thing. It seems to be a bit more complicated than 'My Pet Goat'. If you are satisfied that you already know what they are working so hard to understand I would think you would share your deep insight with them.
Your simplistic explanations just don't wash in the real world. Have you forgotten how this administration has used the law to break the law?
As I have commented in prior post, far better minds than yours are still studying this bill in their efforts to know exactly what it says.
And despite your denial, you have an agenda. Why else would you repeatedly post positive comments about so troubling an issue?

[laurenc]

from John Edwards' website:

Our government should protect the privacy, communications, and personal records of Americans—not spy on them without court supervision as the Bush Administration has done. Edwards will end the warrantless wiretapping of Americans' phone calls and e-mails and the data-mining of Americans' communications and personal records, restoring judicial review to surveillance of American citizens. He rejects retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. He will fix the Patriot Act by restoring important safeguards to the provisions most susceptible to abuse: the "sneak-and-peek" delayed-notice searches, National Security Letters, and the business and library records provisions.